The main thrust of the petition signed by Senator Kaewsan Atibhodi and other senators focuses on Thaksin’s alleged de facto ownership of huge chunks of Shin Corp shares prior to the sell-off. According to the senators, there is evidence that Thaksin violated Article 209 of the Constitution, which prohibits the prime minister, Cabinet members and holders of high public office from owning more than five per cent of shares in any business company.

The petitioners insist that even though Thaksin claimed to have transferred his shares in Shin Corp to members of his family to comply with the share-ownership limit, the prime minister had continued to be actively involved in business decision making at the company he founded, including the trading of Shin Corp shares, right up to the offloading of the family’s entire stake in the telecom conglomerate on January 23.

The prompt action by the Constitution Court to accept the petition and the early scheduling of the first meeting to deliberate the admissibility of the petition and accompanying evidence demonstrates how seriously the court takes the conflict-of-interest allegation against the prime minister.

Most people still remember the Constitution Court’s infamous ruling of 2001 in favour of then-newly elected Prime Minister Thaksin, which was made amid accusations of political interference.

In the controversial case, Thaksin and his wife transferred billions of baht worth of shares of Shin Corp to nominees but the new premier failed to report those transactions in the assets statements he submitted to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC). Thaksin was earlier found by the NCCC to have failed to declare part of his and his wife’s assets to nominees comprising his household maid, security guard and driver.

Thaksin insisted that those transactions had been conducted by his wife without his knowledge and that he had not benefited from them. A slim majority of the Constitution Court judges took him at his word and voted to let him off the hook on grounds of a lack of dishonest intent.

Since that controversial ruling, the prime minister became so emboldened by his perceived invulnerability that he went on to bend or break every political, administrative or legal rule standing in the way of his political self-aggrandisement and selfish interest.

In the last five years, Thaksin has engaged in a wide range of alleged wrongdoings including policy corruption, abuse of power, influence peddling, human-rights violations and the suppression of civil liberties.

Virtually all efforts by civil society to call the prime minister to account have failed probably because Thaksin has been too clever at manipulating the Constitution Court and other constitutionally mandated watchdogs.

Political interference in independent watchdog bodies is an insidious threat to democracy because it renders ineffective the system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government and enables political rulers to gain too much power and to eventually corrupt the whole political system.

Amid heated debate and growing polarisation over Thaksin’s legitimacy to rule, the Constitution Court must be aware that the Thai public is now looking to it to do its duty as the highest arbiter of law in the land to make decisions based on honest interpretation of the Constitution. By honest interpretation of the Constitution, we mean the kind of interpretation that respects the letter as well as the spirit of the highest law.