• 
• 

Published on April 9, 2008

The unanimous NCCC ruling is binding but it has no mandate to actually remove Chaiya, NCCC member and spokesman Klanarong Chantik said. That rests with the prime minister, the Election Commission, the House or the Senate.

"Under the NCCC ruling, Chaiya is disqualified to serve as per Article 182 of the Constitution and now it is up to the prime minister or one of three agencies to enforce his removal," Klanarong said.

Had Chaiya been involved in asset concealment as defined by the anti-graft law, the NCCC would be empowered to remove him by petitioning the Supreme Court, he said.

Chaiya was accused of violating Article 269 of the Constitution which bans Cabinet members, their spouses and minor children from having equity stakes exceeding 5 per cent, he said.

In committing an offence under Article 269, he was automatically disqualified under Article 182 which details the qualifications to hold office, including the 5 per cent cap.

As Chaiya was found to have lacked the individual qualifications to remain in office, the prime minister, as the enforcer of the law on shares held by Cabinet members, has a direct responsibility to make him leave office, he said. Should the prime minister question the NCCC ruling, the government can petition for a judicial review by the Constitution Court, he said.

In case the government failed to enforce the NCCC ruling, one of the three agencies, the EC, the House or the Senate, could initiate the judicial review to remove Chaiya.

He said the Chaiya case was similar to the violations involving five ministers in the Surayud government. All five resigned instead of facing the humiliation of being forced out of office.

Chaiya's wife Jurai Sasomsap had 50 per cent equity worth Bt2.5 million in a company but he failed to report it in his asset declaration.

The Nation