Petition Filed for Constitutional Court Ruling on NACC's Finding That Saksiam Did Not Intentionally Conceal Assets in Violation of Constitution
An activist has petitioned the Ombudsman to challenge the National Anti-Corruption Commission's finding that former minister Saksiam Chidchob did not intentionally conceal assets, arguing it contradicts a 2023 Constitutional Court ruling th
On April 27, 2026, Srisuwan Janthip, leader of the Ruam Chart Ruam Din organization, filed a petition with the Ombudsman requesting that the matter be forwarded to the Constitutional Court to rule whether the National Anti-Corruption Commission's (NACC) decision regarding Saksiam Chidchob—finding he did not intentionally file false asset declarations in violation of Article 211(4) of the Constitution—contradicts the court's interpretation.
The petition follows the Constitutional Court's January 17, 2023 ruling (Decision 1/2566) that Saksiam maintained partnership stakes and continued to hold shares and own Buri Charoen Construction Company, and was involved in managing its shares and operations—conduct prohibited under Article 187 of the Constitution and the Ministers' Asset Disposition Act B.E. 2543, Section 4(1). This resulted in his ministerial status being terminated under Article 170(1)(5) of the Constitution.
Srisuwan stated that after receiving the Constitutional Court's decision, he filed a complaint with the NACC on January 19, 2023, requesting investigation into whether Saksiam exhibited unusual wealth accumulation, asset concealment, corruption, or serious ethical violations. On September 8, 2025, the NACC ruled that Saksiam did not intentionally file false asset declarations but did not publicize the decision until April 23, 2026. Srisuwan claims the NACC's statement contains numerous contradictions that directly conflict with the Constitutional Court's 2023 ruling.
Srisuwan subsequently petitioned the Ombudsman to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court to determine whether the NACC's decision violates Article 211(4) of the Constitution, or alternatively to the Administrative Court for investigation and judgment.