NACC court move on 44 ex-MFP MPs sparks ‘lawfare’ warning
The NACC is preparing to file its Article 112 case against 44 former Move Forward MPs, as People’s Party leader Natthaphong warns against any rushed move before the policy debate.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is preparing to file a petition with the Supreme Court against 44 former Move Forward Party MPs over their bid to amend Article 112, while People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut has warned that any rushed move before the government’s policy debate would risk being seen as political interference and “lawfare”.
Surapong Intharathawon, secretary-general of the NACC, said on Tuesday (April 7) that officials were urgently preparing 56 sets of supporting documents, amounting to tens of thousands of pages, for submission to the Supreme Court bench and the court secretariat. He said the documents were due to be delivered to the secretariat on April 9 and, if found complete, the petition could be filed that same day.
Filing could come on day of policy statement
Surapong said that if the paperwork was not yet complete, the filing could be delayed, but insisted the NACC was working at full speed and would submit the case immediately once ready. He rejected suggestions that the timing had anything to do with politics, even though April 9 coincides with the government’s policy statement to Parliament.
He said the filing itself would only mark the beginning of the judicial process. The Supreme Court would then appoint a panel to examine the petition before deciding whether to accept the case and whether those accused should be ordered to suspend their duties pending further proceedings.
Natthaphong questions timing
At Parliament on the same day, Natthaphong, a party-list MP and leader of the People’s Party, said that under the normal course of events, especially with Songkran approaching, any decision on whether to accept the petition or suspend MPs from duty should come only after the holiday period.
He said that if any suspension order were issued before Songkran and ahead of the policy debate, it would raise serious questions. There was, he argued, no reason to block the People’s Party from taking part in the parliamentary debate, and Parliament should be allowed to proceed normally so opposition MPs could carry out their duties fully.
People’s Party brands case political
Natthaphong said he had consistently maintained that the case violated the principle that MPs have the right to propose legal amendments. He described the case as a clear example of “lawfare”, with legal mechanisms being used by political opponents to obstruct and weaken his party.
He added that any accelerated process would only deepen public suspicion, particularly at a time when questions were already being raised over the independence of state institutions and whether the government could influence them. Even so, he said the party had prepared for every scenario, including the worst-case outcome, and was ready to continue its work regardless of when any order might be issued.
The case stems from efforts by former Move Forward MPs to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code. The NACC has already approved a draft petition in the case, and 10 current People’s Party MPs could be affected if the Supreme Court accepts it for consideration. The People’s Party was formed after Move Forward was dissolved because of attempt to amend Article 112, and Natthaphong now leads the party in opposition.
