Constitutional Court to discuss extending Move Forward defence deadline next week

Nakharin Mektrairat said it was likely that the court would extend the deadline for 15 more days.

As a result, he said the Constitutional Court would not issue any ruling in the case against the Move Forward this month as the 15-day extension would automatically extend a possible ruling to after the end of April, Nakharin said.

So far, the Move Forward has not formally sought an extension of the deadline for it to submit a written defence to the court. Only its leading members, former party leader Pita Limmjaroenrat and current leader Chaithawat Tulathon have given interviews to the media stating that the party might seek the extension of the defence deadline.

The Constitutional Court resolved on April 3 to proceed with a judicial review of the case filed by the Election Commission accusing Move Forward of violating the Political Parties Act by attempting to overthrow the constitutional monarchy through its earlier campaigns to amend the lese majeste law, or Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

The court gave the Move Forward 15 days to submit its written defence, and the deadline would fall on April 17.

Nakharin said the court is likely to extend the deadline for 15 days during its meeting next week and if Move Forward has a good reason, the court may extend the deadline longer than 15 days.

It has been reported that Move Forward might seek a deadline extension of 60 days as a delaying tactic.

It was also reported that Move Forward would call on the court to interview witnesses in another delaying tactic. Nakharin said that if the party did so, the court would have to consider its reasons first.

On March 12, the EC members voted unanimously to seek the dissolution of Move Forward, the biggest opposition party. The EC move followed complaints filed with the election agency by Ruangkrai Leekitwattana and Theerayut Suwankesorn, two serial petitioners.

The complainants claimed that Move Forward was in breach of Section 92 of the organic law on political parties. That law allows the EC to ask the Constitutional Court for the dissolution of any parties found to have attempted to scrap the country’s constitutional-monarchy system.

Both complainants cited the charter court’s decision on January 31 ordering Move Forward to cease all attempts to abolish or amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese majeste law. The January 31 ruling stated that Move Forward’s attempt to amend Article 112 was tantamount to seeking to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

Nakharin said on Wednesday that although the court ruled against Move Forward in January, it doesn’t mean it would automatically rule against the party in the new case.

He explained that the two cases were based on different laws. The earlier case was based on Article 49 of the charter while the current case is based on Article 92 of the Political Parties Act.