As the Constitutional Court's president, Worawit Kangsasitiam, gears up to celebrate his 70th birthday next week, a debate is brewing on whether or not he should step down from the helm of one of the country's top courts. Many people, including several well-known critics, believe he should.
Prior to being voted in to replace Nurak Mapraneet as court president on March 5, 2020, Mr Worawit was named a Constitutional Court judge back in 2014 under the old constitution, which allowed judges to serve for a nine-year term, or up until the age of 70. Under the new constitution, judges can only serve for seven years until the age of 70. But the age can be extended to 75.
The nine-member Constitutional Court is at odds on the matter -- with four judges reportedly wanting Mr Worawit to step down once he turns 70, while the other four are of the view that he should be allowed to serve until 75 as outlined by the current charter.
The differing interpretations over his retirement have come under public scrutiny, with some speculating that judges aged under 70 who were sworn in under the old charter are seeking to benefit from the longer tenure.
The Constitution Court called an urgent meeting this week to sort out the differences. However, no resolution was made public.
The court judges should realise that any resolution should be based on the interests of the institution and the country, not that of any particular person. It's absolutely necessary that the court upholds its integrity and principles.
Due to the constitutional ambiguities, some experts have said that Mr Worawit should be allowed to serve under restrictions set out by the old charter.
But doing so will prove to be a very risky move for the Constitutional Court, especially given its track record of legal controversies. Several of its rulings have been challenged by legal experts, among them its contentious verdict at the end of 2020 which saved Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's premiership despite his dubious tenancy in an army house after his retirement.
More importantly, the judges must remember that any decision made on Mr Worawit's future will form a legal precedent that could be used in another crucial case involving the tenure of Gen Prayut, whose term will be up for debate this August when he meets the eight-year tenure cap outlined in the 2017 charter.
Gen Prayut's supporters have argued that the countdown towards the eight-year limit should start in 2019 when Gen Prayut re-entered office after taking the oath of office under the new charter. His opponents, meanwhile, believed his tenure began after the coup in 2014.
The tenure restriction will be the next political time-bomb for the army commander turned politician, as his opponents have vowed to take the case to the Constitutional Court.
Having said that, Mr Worawit, as the court president, should lead by example. The president of the Constitutional Court must and should not be taking advantage and/or benefiting from legal loopholes.
Doing so will bring about disgrace, not only for himself but also the Constitutional Court.
