The prime minister said Tuesday that his government was duty-bound to seek compensation for the loss and it was necessary to use the administrative order because the civil case will expire in two years, Thai PBS Reported.
He insisted that administrative order was not Section 44 of the interim charter and it was not a new law. He, nevertheless, said that the order could not force Ms Yingluck to pay the compensation if she refuses to accept it and, instead, take the case to the Administrative Court.
The prime minister’s above remarks was in response to an open letter she submitted to him on Tuesday through her lawyer. The letter asked the prime minister for fair treatment by letting the case to go through normal court proceedings instead of through the use of an administrative order to claim compensation from her.
The prime minister said he didn’t know what was the real motive for the submission of the open letter by Ms Yingluck. As the prime minister, he said he was duty-bound to demand compensation for the loss but, at the same time, he must make sure that the action to be taken should not be seen as a bully against Ms Yingluck.
Meanwhile, Good-governance activists on Tuesday called on the Office of the Ombudsman to launch an ethics investigation of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha for nepotism in nominating members to a new government-reform body.
The Association of Organizations Protecting the Thai Constitution petition also urged that the ethics probe include Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, who is the brother of two men named to the National Reform Steering Assembly: Air Marshal Chalermpol Krea-ngam and Dusit Krea-ngam.
Gen Prayut on Oct 5 appointed 77 military and police officers, both active and retired, to sit on the 200-member NRSA even though the NRSA should represent people from all walks of life and not include relatives or close associates of government officials, the group said.
Association president Srisuwan Janya said it could be concluded that Gen Prayut and Mr Wissanu did not base their NRSA selections on merit, ethical standards and the law, which violates conflict-of-interest principles.
They also might have violated Section 13(2) of the Ombudsman Act governing ethics of political office holders, and the Prime Minister’s Office 2008 regulations on political ethics.
If the two are found to have breached the ethical standards, the case should be forwarded to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for further legal action and impeachment, he said.