Bangkok: Supachai Jaisamut, a Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bhumjaithai Party, has clarified the roles of "Committee 26" and "Committee 36" in the ongoing Senate collusion case, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between the two to avoid public confusion. He stressed that the case must be judged based on "evidence" rather than public opinion.
According to Thai News Agency, Supachai addressed the issue through a Facebook post, explaining that the repeated mentions of these committees could lead to misunderstandings about their functions. He noted that "Committee 26" and "Committee 36" are not the same investigative bodies, nor was Committee 36 established to continue the work of Committee 26. Supachai highlighted the need to clearly differentiate the roles of each committee to prevent misinterpretations of the investigation process.
The process is governed by the Election Commission's Regulations on Investigation, Inquiry, and Adjudication, B.E. 2561 (2018) and its amendments. Committee 26, known as the Central Investigation and Inquiry Committee, is responsible for investigating and gathering evidence, informing the accused of charges, and preparing the case file. However, Committee 26 does not make final judgments on guilt or innocence.
Committee 36, on the other hand, serves as the Sub-committee for Resolving Problems or Disputes. Its role is to review and scrutinize investigation files that have passed through the Election Commission's office, based on evidence and legal arguments. The committee then prepares an opinion for submission to the Election Commission for further consideration.
Supachai emphasized that the process does not jump directly from Committee 26 to Committee 36. Once Committee 26 completes its report, it is sent to the Election Commission office for analysis. The matter then proceeds to Committee 36 for review, before being submitted to the full Election Commission for a decision.
The distinction between the committees is crucial to understanding the Senate collusion case. Supachai stressed the importance of verifying the source of evidence at each stage, ensuring it was obtained legally, and providing the accused a fair opportunity to challenge it. He underscored that the credibility of evidence, rather than media coverage, determines the seriousness of a case.
In conclusion, Supachai reiterated that in all cases, whether involving Members of Parliament or Senators, the procedure remains consistent. The source of evidence must be verified, the process must be legal, and justice must prevail for the accused.