NBTC leadership dispute in Thailand

A leadership dispute has emerged within Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) following a legal challenge regarding the qualifications of Chairman Dr. Sorana Boonbaichaiyapruk. The NBTC Selection Committee ordered Dr. Sorana to cease his duties after the Central Administrative Court dismissed his lawsuit to revoke a decision regarding his eligibility. The Committee determined he lacked required qualifications or possessed prohibited characteristics, and they have petitioned for a temporary injunction to prevent further disruption to the organization.

Despite the order, the situation escalated into a structural conflict within the board. Following the suspension order, which included an administrative fine of 50,000 baht per day for non-compliance, the board split during proceedings. While a meeting scheduled by the Chairman failed to reach a quorum, a majority of six board members convened a separate special meeting to elect Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supat Supachalasai as temporary acting chairman. This development has created legal uncertainty regarding which authority the NBTC Secretariat and Secretary-General are required to follow.

Adding to the legal complexity, the Civil Court recently dismissed a 20-million-baht defamation and tort lawsuit filed by Dr. Sorana against four NBTC board members and Issara Thai Press Development Co., Ltd. The court ruled that the board members had the right to express opinions regarding the Chairman’s performance in good faith.

Following a September 25, 2026, ruling by the Central Administrative Court that upheld the selection committee’s decision regarding Dr. Sorana’s eligibility, the Office of the Prime Minister has issued an urgent request for the NBTC to clarify why meetings were convened on October 1-2, 2026, under his direction. The Prime Minister’s Secretariat noted that filing a lawsuit does not automatically suspend an administrative order, raising concerns that issuing meeting invitations under Dr. Sorana’s orders may be inconsistent with the court’s judgment.