Bangkok: "Phanthil" has urged the Election Commission to forward the case file regarding alleged collusion in the Senate elections to the Supreme Court, questioning the sufficiency of evidence. He criticized the commission's credibility, asserting that it is nearly nonexistent, and threatened legal action under Section 157 of the Criminal Code if the case is not adequately addressed, thereby allowing a parliamentary committee to review the resolutions.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Phanthil Nuamjerm, a Bangkok MP from the People's Party, has reiterated his demand for the Election Commission (EC) to immediately transfer the Senate collusion case to the Supreme Court. He highlighted the commission's deteriorating credibility, referencing recent news reports such as the EC's employment of Mr. Nattawut Wongniem, a lawyer involved in a defamation case linked to Mr. Suchart Chomklin, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment. Wongniem, who previously served as an advisor to EC commissioner Mr. Thitichat Nuchanat, was implicated in a barcode ballot case. Additionally, Mr. Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, a former EC commissioner, was set to file a complaint against Wongniem with the Lawyers Council of Thailand, citing his alleged lack of credibility following his dismissal as a prosecutor in Khon Kaen.
Mr. Phanthil argued that the EC, given its current credibility issues, should not function as a court. He emphasized that with tens of thousands of pages of evidence available, the EC should submit the case to the Supreme Court if credible evidence exists. He challenged the EC to explain why this extensive evidence has not been sent to the court or if the EC is overstepping its jurisdiction. The Constitutional Act on the Acquisition of Senators allows the EC to submit credible evidence to the Supreme Court, but it does not authorize the EC to act as the court itself.
Addressing a statement by Mr. Sitthichot Intrawises, an EC member, regarding the possibility of forwarding the case to the Supreme Court if substantial evidence is present, Mr. Phanthil highlighted additional evidence presented by the opposition. This includes financial transactions, airline tickets, and other records. He questioned the sufficiency of this evidence and whether additional witnesses are necessary. He also mentioned evidence involving Mr. Subin, linked to an MP from the Bhumjaithai Party, suggesting that further investigation could implicate a southern regional leader of the party.
Mr. Phanthil concluded by warning that if the EC only forwards files of certain individuals involved in the Senate collusion case to the Supreme Court, those responsible will face prosecution under Section 157 of the Criminal Code. He urged the EC to recognize the implications of their actions, stressing the importance of submitting clear evidence to the Supreme Court. He noted that post-EC voting, Parliament and its committees retain the authority to request documents and evidence, ensuring that the issue remains unresolved and open to further examination.