Pita accuses EC of double standards in handling Move Forward case

Pita Limjaroenrat, former Move Forward Party leader, on Sunday accused the Election Commission of using double standards to fast-track the dissolution case against his party without providing an opportunity for it to defend itself.

Pita was speaking at a press conference at the Move Forward head office to outline key strategies of his party to defend itself in the party-dissolution case in the Constitutional Court.

Pita further clarified the key nine defence strategies he announced during the press conference held on June 9. In the first conference, he argued among other things that the process by the EC to seek the dissolution was unlawful.

On Sunday, Pita said the EC omitted Article 93 of the Political Parties Act that requires an investigation and a chance for the accused party to defend itself during the investigation process.

Instead, Pita said, the EC opted to invoke only Article 92 to bypass a normal investigation process and fast-track the petition against Move Forward.

Article 92 allows the EC to seek dissolution against a party for a deed deemed a hostile act against the constitutional monarchy and an attempt to overthrow the democratic ruling system with the King as head of state.

Article 93 requires the EC to gather facts and evidence in accordance with regulations announced by the EC before it could submit the case to the Constitutional Court.

Pita noted that the EC itself issued regulations in February last year for the enforcement of Articles 92 and 93 of the Political Parties Act.
He said the regulations required the EC to provide a chance for the accused party to acknowledge charges and against them during the deliberation by the EC.

Pita said the EC treated the Thai Raksa Chart party differently from Move Forward. In the former case, the EC allowed the party to argue during its deliberation process, but in the Move Forward case, it just sent the case to the court without summoning the party to testify first.

The EC has said that in the Move Forward case, it invoked only Article 92 to handle the case. But Pita said the EC had no right to use only Article 92 as both articles must be invoked together as a package to make it fair to accused parties.

What happened showed that the EC had practised double standards against Move Forward by invoking only Article 92, Pita said.

“This is double standards. When the EC wants to dissolve a party, it sends the party on the expressway to the court by invoking only Article 92,” Pita said.

“But when it doesn’t dissolve a party fast, it will try to buy time by invoking Article 93. The EC can’t do this, as it has created double standards in Thailand.”

Pita added that the Constitutional Court on June 19 asked Move Forward to submit written answers to its two questions within seven days and scheduled the next hearing for July 3.

In the first question, Pita said, the court asked whether Move Forward had an opportunity to defend itself during the process of deliberation by the EC.

Pita said the EC did not summon Move Forward to hear the charges at all, let alone give it an opportunity to defend itself.

He added that the law did not allow Move Forward to raise its argument without being summoned by the EC first.

In the lawsuit against Move Forward, the EC cited the Constitutional Court’s ruling on January 31 that Pita’s and Move Forward’s election campaigns last year were deemed an attempt to topple the constitutional monarchy.

For the second question, Pita said, the court asked whether it had carried out any action that could be deemed hostile to the constitutional monarchy.

He said Move Forward has replied to the court that it could not answer the second question at this moment because the EC’s charges that the party had acted to overthrow and acted hostile against the constitutional monarchy was different from the accusation the party faced in the ruling on January 31. 

In the previous case, Pita explained, the party was accused of using its liberty to seek to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

He said Move Forward could not carry out any action hostile to the constitutional monarchy.

He added that since Move Forward faced a new charge that differed from the case on which the court ruled in January, the EC should have started an investigation from scratch instead of bypassing it.