Lawyers Suggest Two-Member Board Process to Unlock NBTC Operations

Legal experts have proposed a solution to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) leadership deadlock, recommending that two board members jointly petition to convene meetings before electing an interim chair. On September 18, Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Communication Studies, along with the Free Speech Movement of Thailand and a network of media, law, and public policy academics, held a seminar titled "NBTC 'Stuck'—Who Is Affected and What Is the Way Out?" The forum discussed the impact of the NBTC chair vacancy on media and telecommunications oversight, and covered various telecommunications and digital television issues.

Associate Professor Narong Det Surukhosit from Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law presented on the selection committee's ruling and current board status. He explained that under administrative law principles, government orders and rulings remain binding until a court with jurisdiction revokes or suspends them. Filing an administrative court case does not automatically halt the ruling's effect.

From a legal standpoint, without a court order suspending the selection committee's decision, Associate Professor Sanan Bunyabaichaiprux cannot legally hold the position of NBTC board member or chair and cannot perform those duties.

Surukhosit noted that a vacancy in the chair position does not prevent the NBTC from functioning, as six remaining board members exceed the minimum quorum required. The real issue is determining the proper legal mechanism to call meetings without a chair.

After surveying over 30 laws governing both public and private sector committees, Surukhosit found principles for handling emergencies or obstacles in committee operations. He proposed that two NBTC board members jointly petition to call a meeting, after which the NBTC office, as secretariat, must organize the meeting and invite remaining members.

At the first meeting, the board should elect a temporary chair to enable proceedings and agenda items to advance. Historical precedent exists where regulatory bodies have allowed attending members to elect a chair when the regular chair is absent, in accordance with applicable laws and bylaws.

Surukhosit emphasized that with a properly composed board meeting the legal minimum, the committee can continue exercising its powers. Even if a future court ruling changes the legal status of the dispute, actions taken by a properly constituted board during that period remain valid under Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The forum's recommended approach is for two board members to jointly petition for a meeting, allowing the remaining members to elect a temporary chair to proceed with agenda items and perform duties.