Move Forward submits defence in ‘political’ dissolution case
Opposition party launches legal battle against charge of intending to overthrow monarchy
The opposition Move Forward Party on Tuesday submitted the written defence in its dissolution case and asked the Constitutional Court to clarify the charge of intending to overthrow the monarchy, its leader Chaithawat Tulathon said.
Chaithawat stated that the party would fight the case on facts but was aware that the verdict may not be based solely on legal grounds. He added that people understood the attempt to dissolve Move Forward was politically motivated.
The Election Commission petitioned the court on January 31 to rule on whether Move Forward’s push to amend the lese majeste law, Article 112 of the criminal code, was intended to topple the constitutional monarchy.
"Since the day Move Forward was founded, both I and party advisory chairman Pita Limcharoenrat have been asked whether we worry about the party being dissolved, even though we haven't done anything yet,” Chaithawat said.
“So, everyone knows that events like this are likely to happen, and it's political. Therefore, we will fight the case based on the law and facts, but ultimately the result may be influenced by political factors, which can change every day. So, we don't know how it will end.”
The party said it would release the full defence statement drafted by Chaithawat on Sunday. It is expected to reaffirm Move Forward’s stance that it had no intention of overthrowing the constitutional monarchy and no such offence had been committed. Party spokesman Parit Wacharasindhu explained that holding the press conference on Sunday would give the party enough time to summarise its legal strategy clearly and concisely so everyone could understand.
Once the case gets underway, the party would highlight evidence that requires further clarification and present its legal opinion. Chaithawat said the court would decide how many witnesses to hear. In previous cases against the party, only a few defence witnesses had been called and it was uncertain whether their testimony was utilised, he added.
