The country was at a more or less similar crossroads before and, ironically, it was the Constitution Court that chose the way then. In 2001, the judges, in their most contentious verdict ever, decided to let Thaksin Shinawatra off the hook in the shares-concealment scandal. His acquittal - controversially forged through the combination of four judges ruling "not guilty" and four judges ruling "no jurisdiction" to beat the "guilty" ruling from seven judges to form a thin majority verdict - set Thailand on an uncharted political path. A man who according to the will of the 1997 Constitution should have been contained at all costs was let loose. The ruling saved him from a five-year ban from politics. Five years, coincidentally, that would have come to an end this year.

The court's chosen path has been one fraught with unprecedented mega conflicts of interest. Corruption reached new levels. Nepotism has changed from something practised in secrecy into something blatant and absolutely shameless. Contempt for civil rights and liberty has been shown on a regular basis. Freedom of expression has been scorned. Checks and balances have crumbled.

Street protests that led to the present political crisis were prompted by public anger over the consequences of the 2001 acquittal decision. And if we look at the catalyst of the uprising, we will see more damning evidence of why the Constitution Court cannot escape the main responsibility. The "hidden" Shin Corp shares - which the court's "majority" judges saw nothing wrong with - came back to haunt Thailand in the highly controversial deal with Singapore's Temasek Holdings. Ample Rich Investment, an obscure offshore company surreptitiously holding a large amount of Shin Corp stocks, played a crucial role in the deal's tax-free transactions. It's the same Ample Rich that the court decided to ignore in 2001.

When the judges are about to hand down their final judgements on the April 2 election, they will have to look far beyond the trivial technical issues like the positioning of ballot booths. True, those aspects can provide grounds for nullifying or endorsing the election. But the real issue here is whether Thailand should divert from the long, hazardous path it was put on in 2001. In other words, should a weary and tired Kingdom go ahead with a crippled Parliament, absolutely controlled by MPs associated with a questionable leader who was the cause of the prevalent turmoil and division in the first place?

Advocates of Thaksin's acquittal in 2001 reasoned that he had just won a landslide election, that 11 million voters had shown faith in his party. Whether or not that rationale played a part in the court's ruling, "numbers" should not carry any weight this time. Thaksin easily won the April 2 election, and some 13 million-14 million people voted for his party. But now the Constitution Court has been assigned by the will of the highest law of the land to see what the rest of the country may have failed to see, to hear what they may have failed to hear and to decide on what others may dare not act on.

This is the time when the Constitution Court must think hard about the ultimate ideology: What's best for Thailand? They have to set aside technicality and individualism and focus on the biggest picture - how to get Thailand's comatose political system back on its feet and give it a healthy life. The path the judges chose for us in 2001 led us here. It's an irony that our future is in their hands again. All we can do is have faith, and hope they do too.