1-7-2024 (BANGKOK) In a scathing critique of the Election Commission (EC), Move Forward Party (MFP) chief adviser Pita Limjaroenrat has leveled accusations of double standards against the electoral body for its petition to the Constitutional Court seeking to disband the party. Limjaroenrat, in a forceful update published on Sunday, emphasized the EC’s process of filing complaints against the MFP as unlawful, reigniting a fiery debate over the fairness and impartiality of Thailand’s political institutions.
At the crux of Limjaroenrat’s allegations is the EC’s decision to base its petition solely on Section 92 of the organic law on political parties, a provision that empowers the commission to request the Constitutional Court to dissolve the MFP without conducting an inquiry. This move, according to the MFP chief adviser, constitutes a blatant double standard, as the EC has selectively applied the law in a manner that unfairly targets his party.
“It is evident that Section 93 of the law cannot be exercised without a connection to Section 92. If both sections are exercised separately in a party dissolution case, a double standard will occur,” Limjaroenrat asserted, underscoring the interdependent nature of the two legal provisions.
Section 92 stipulates that when credible evidence exists that a party has carried out acts undermining the constitutional monarchy, the EC should petition the court for its dissolution. Section 93, on the other hand, mandates that the party registrar, upon discovering such acts, should gather facts and evidence and present them to the EC for consideration, following the commission’s rules and procedures.
Limjaroenrat argued that the EC’s decision to invoke Section 92 alone effectively puts the MFP on an “expressway” to dissolution, while other parties are afforded a more measured and deliberate process. “The question is, can the EC use its discretion like this without anyone else involved in the decision?” he challenged, questioning the commission’s authority to exercise such unilateral power.
Furthermore, the MFP chief adviser emphasized the necessity for a party facing dissolution to be granted the opportunity to dispute the charges with the EC, a principle underscored by the commission’s own document drafted in November 2022. This document explicitly states that a party facing dissolution must be allowed to acknowledge and argue its case with the EC before it is submitted to the court.
The EC, however, has firmly rejected the MFP’s complaints, denying any allegations of unfair treatment towards the party.
In the latest development, the Constitutional Court has ordered the MFP to prepare evidence within seven days for a hearing scheduled for this Wednesday, June 28th. This hearing will undoubtedly be a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle, as the party fights to avoid the same fate that befell its predecessor, the Future Forward Party, which was disbanded in 2020.
