Move Forward to make public its defence in party dissolution case
Move Forward Party leader Chaithawat Tulathon said on Wednesday that his party would submit its written defence to the Constitutional Court in the party dissolution case after the Songkran holidays.
Chaithawat said the party would also make public its defence instead of submitting it only to the court.
The Move Forward leader was speaking to reporters shortly after the Constitutional Court announced that it had resolved to take up the case filed by the Election Commission for a judicial review.
The EC alleged that Move Forward had violated Article 92 of the organic law governing political parties by carrying out election campaigns led by then party leader Pita Limjaroenrat to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law.
The EC petitioned the court to dissolve the party after the Constitutional Court ruled on January 31 that election campaigns by Pita and the Move Forward were deemed an act hostile to the democratic system with the King as the head of the state. The court ordered Move Forward to halt its attempts to amend Article 112 immediately.
Chaithawat said the court’s decision to hear the case would not affect the performance of Move Forward MPs in the two-day debate against the government, which started on Wednesday.
Chaithawat said Move Forward had been preparing to deal with the case for some time.
Once the party receives an official statement from the court, the party’s legal team and core members would prepare their best possible written defence.
The court has given the party 15 days to submit its defence.
Chaithawat said he expected the written defence to be sent to the court after the Songkran holidays and also be released to the public nearly at the same time.
He said Move Forward MPs and members were no longer worried about the case.
“We have talked about it several times and now we’ll move forward to fight the case,” Chaithawat said.
He said although the court ruled in January against the party, it did not mean the party had no legal channel to fight the case.
“Although the court ordered the party to stop its campaign for amendment of Article 112, it doesn’t mean the court would dissolve our party as requested by the EC,” Chaithawat said.
“We still have facts and legal aspects to defend ourselves,” he said.
