Pita, Natthaphong vow to fight 44-MP case, deny overthrow claims over Section 112

People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut has vowed to fight the case involving 44 former Move Forward MPs, warning that any order suspending sitting MPs from duty would not only affect the individuals involved but could also weaken the legislative power that belongs to the people.

In a post on X on April 23, 2026, Natthaphong said he and his colleagues would “never stop performing their duties as representatives of the people”.

He said his political journey began with the Future Forward movement, driven by the belief that politics belongs to ordinary people and that everyone, wherever they live in the country, should be able to take part in building a Thailand where sovereign power truly rests with the people.

Natthaphong said the movement had never travelled an easy path, citing defamation lawsuits, party dissolution, political bans and various forms of intimidation.

Despite this, he said the MPs had acted to protect the public interest and taxpayers’ money, while pushing for Thailand to become a country governed by the rule of law, where all people are equal and treated fairly.

He insisted that the former Move Forward MPs’ decision to sign and propose a bill amending Section 112 of the Criminal Code was within their legitimate constitutional authority as elected MPs.

He said Parliament was the proper venue to discuss sensitive issues maturely and seek a way out of conflict that had persisted for more than a decade.

“We had no intention whatsoever to overthrow, erode or undermine the system, as alleged by those in power,” Natthaphong said.

He urged the public to consider fairly whether the greater threat to democracy came from MPs performing their legislative duties, or from the use of “ethical standards” without clear rules or consistent application.

Natthaphong also questioned the pace of the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s handling of the case, saying it had moved quickly against his group while many corruption cases involving public interests remained stalled.

He argued that the real reason behind the action was not the proposed amendment itself, but the fact that the MPs represented people who wanted structural change, change that threatened groups long accustomed to holding power and benefiting from the existing system.

Natthaphong said that regardless of the Supreme Court’s order on April 24, the 10 sitting MPs involved in the case should be allowed to continue their work.

He gave four reasons.

First, he said their parliamentary duties were carried out under the Constitution to protect public interests and did not cause damage to the public or state administration that would be difficult to remedy later.

Second, MPs play an essential role in parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

Third, the 10 MPs could no longer repeat the act cited in the NACC petition by proposing a similar bill.

Finally, he said their continued work would not affect the court’s fact-finding process or interfere with evidence, as the Constitutional Court and NACC had already gathered the facts.

Natthaphong warned that if the Supreme Court ordered the 10 MPs to stop performing their duties, it would inevitably affect the parliamentary system.

He said other MPs, or even the entire legislature, could become afraid to perform their constitutional role as a bridge between the public, Parliament and the administration of the country.

He said the case was larger than the MPs themselves or the People’s Party, because it touched on the future of Thai democracy and the power of the legislature, which comes from the people.

Former Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat also posted on Facebook on April 23, defending the intent of the 44 former Move Forward MPs accused by the NACC of serious ethical misconduct over their support for the Section 112 amendment bill.

Pita said the MPs’ action was not intended to erode, undermine or overthrow the system. Instead, he said it was an attempt to use the House of Representatives as a peaceful and legitimate space for elected representatives with differing views to debate a highly sensitive issue within the framework of the Constitution and the law.

He said Thai society at the time was deeply divided, and if such conflict had been left without a safe and legitimate forum, it could have escalated beyond what the public might expect.

For that reason, he said, the MPs brought the issue back into the legislative process, where it could be debated maturely under clear parliamentary rules, a path he described as the safest for democracy and broadly accepted in civilised countries.

Pita said the action should never have become a case in the first place. He described it as part of a broader “lawfare” process aimed at blocking attempts to achieve social and structural change through Parliament, from Future Forward to Move Forward and now the People’s Party.

He warned that using ethical standards harshly, without clear criteria, checks or balance, could turn them into a tool to destroy political opponents in a disproportionate way.

“That is what is truly eroding and undermining our democracy,” Pita said.

Pita also said the 10 sitting MPs should not be suspended while the case is pending.

Speaking from his own experience of being suspended from duty for six months before returning to Parliament, he said their work remains subject to constitutional checks and would not cause irreversible damage.

He said the MPs play an important role in lawmaking and scrutinising the government. He also noted that 10 MPs alone would not be able to re-submit a similar bill in the same manner.

Allowing them to continue working, he said, would not damage the state or public administration, nor would it weaken the opposition. Instead, it would help preserve the parliamentary system and ensure continuity in public service while the case proceeds through the justice system.