EC told to resubmit petition seeking the dissolution of Move Forward
The Constitutional Court on Wednesday cited ambiguity in details for declining to accept the Election Commission (EC)’s petition to disband the Move Forward Party over its intention to amend the lese majeste law.
A statement from the charter court said the EC had been asked to resubmit the petition within seven days after receiving a letter from the court.
On March 12, the EC members had voted unanimously to seek the dissolution of the biggest opposition party. The EC move followed complaints filed with the election agency by Ruangkrai Leekitwattana and Theerayut Suwankesorn – two serial petitioners.
The complainants claimed that Move Forward was in breach of Section 92 of the organic law on political parties. The law allows the EC to ask the court for the dissolution of any parties found to have attempted to scrap the country’s constitutional monarchy system.
Both complainants cited the charter court’s decision on January 31 ordering Move Forward to cease all attempts to abolish or amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code or the lese majeste law.
It said the party's intention to amend Article 112 violated Section 49 of the Constitution that prevents anyone from using their rights to overthrow the existing governance system of the Kingdom.
Move Forward spokesperson Parit Wacharasindhu on Tuesday said that his party was already prepared for all possible scenarios, but he hoped the party would be allowed to show its legal evidence to the court.
The party-list MP also assured that no backup party had been established so far.
On the same day, the Constitutional Court ruled not to accept a petition against the Pheu Thai Party for attempting to overthrow the constitutional monarchy system.
The complaint was also filed by Ruangkrai, who claimed that Pheu Thai PM candidate Chaikasem Nitisiri had given a speech that showed support for actions that could lead to the repealing of the lese majeste law.
The court noted that Chaikasem was not the leader of the party and had no power to act on behalf of the party, as well as there was no evidence to indicate such intention.
