PM Office Urges NBTC to Explain Ruling Non-Compliance
The Secretariat of the Prime Minister issued an urgent letter dated Oct 9, 2026, demanding the NBTC secretary-general explain failure to follow the Central Administrative Court's ruling.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- PM Secretariat issued official letter No. S408/12973 to the NBTC secretary-general.
- Demands immediate explanation over non-compliance with the Central Administrative Court ruling.
- Refers to court verdict under black case 1455/2026 and red case 1590/2026 on Sept 25, 2026.
- Centers on qualification disputes and waived rights regarding the NBTC board position.
The Secretariat of the Prime Minister has taken significant action by issuing an urgent official letter to pressure the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission into clarifying its reasons for failing to comply with an administrative court ruling regarding Dr. Soran Bunyanupap's high-profile dispute.
According to reports, the letter bearing reference number S408/12973, dated October 9, 2026, was dispatched directly to the secretary-general of the NBTC. The correspondence explicitly demands a detailed explanation regarding ongoing operational procedures that remain out of alignment with the legal standards established by the judicial branch.
This standoff between the executive branch and an independent regulatory body like the NBTC highlights intense scrutiny over state power accountability and the strict enforcement of administrative court verdicts. Direct intervention through an official inquiry from the Prime Minister's Secretariat underscores mounting legal and political pressure on independent agencies to maintain transparency and uphold institutional governance.
The root of this controversy dates back to September 25, 2026, when the Central Administrative Court officially delivered its verdict in black case number 1455/2026 and red case number 1590/2026. The lawsuit involved Dr. Soran Bunyanupap as the plaintiff and the NBTC Selection Committee as the defendant.
The underlying dispute arose after the selection committee ruled that Dr. Soran lacked specific qualifications or possessed prohibited characteristics under Section 8 (2) of the Act on Organization to Assign Radio Frequency and Regulate Broadcasting and Telecommunications Services B.E. 2553 (2010). Consequently, he was deemed to have waived his right to assume office under Section 18 of the same legislation, ultimately triggering the ongoing legal battle.
Source: Khaosod Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment