BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand’s Election Commission said Wednesday it has concluded there is evidence that the top candidate to become the country’s next prime minister, a reformist with strong backing among progressive young voters, violated election law and referred his case to the Constitutional Court for a ruling.
The commission’s decision included a request that the court order Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat suspended as a member of Parliament until the ruling is issued.
The alleged violation involves undeclared ownership of media company shares, which are banned for lawmakers. Separately, the court also said it would review a complaint that Pita and his party may have violated the law by proposing to amendThailand's strict legal provision against defaming the monarchy. Thai media said the court would not make any ruling on Wednesday and that it might need some to consider the issues.
Pita can still be nominated on Thursday when Parliament meets to vote for a new prime minister. But the commission's move raises new doubts about whether he can muster enough votes to get the post, already a struggle because of Thailand's deep political divisions.
The Move Forward Party, with a progressive reformist platform, swept to a surprise first-place finish in May’s general election, capturing 151 seats in the 500-member House of Representatives and the most popular votes. Move Forward has assembled an eight-party, 311-seat coalition with which it had planned to take power.
But Pita's path to power is difficult because he must win 376 votes of a joint session of the House and the conservative, 250-seat, non-elected Senate. The Senate largely represents Thailand's traditional ruling establishment, which suspects Move Forward's proposals for minor reforms of the monarchy endanger the royal institution, which they consider to be the center of Thais' national identity.
Pita's party responded to the Election Commission's decision by questioning its fairness and even its legality. It said its decision was unnecessarily hurried and violated its own procedures by failing to call Pita to give a statement.
The commission had earlier said it acted correctly but Move Forward alleges its members may have engaged in malfeasance, or carrying out duties in a wrongful manner, a crime punishable by 10 years imprisonment and a fine.
The election law complaint against Pita, lodged by a member of a rival party, alleges he ran for office in 2019 while failing to declare his shares in a media company.
The case the commission referred to the court accuses Pita of running for office with awareness that he was ineligible, a criminal violation punishable by maximum imprisonment of three years and/or a fine of up to 60,000 baht ($1,720). The party faces a fine of up to 100,000 baht ($2,865).
Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, the government’s top legal advisor, has been quoted as saying that a ruling against Pita could be grounds for nullifying the May election results and holding a new election.
There have been fears since the election that Thailand’s conservative ruling establishment would use what its political opponents consider to be dirty tricks to hold on to power. For a decade-and-a-half, it has repeatedly used the courts and supposedly independent state agencies such as the Election Commission to issue controversial rulings to cripple or sink political opponents.
The dissolution in 2019 of the Future Forward party, a forerunner of Move Forward, triggered vigorous street protests by pro-democracy activists that trailed off only when the coronavirus pandemic took hold.
Hours after the Election Commission announced its referral of the shareholding case, the Constitutional Court said it had has accepted a separate petition against Move Forward and Pita concerning their campaign promise to amend Thailand's harsh lese majeste law,.
The law, also known as Article 112, mandates a three to 15 year prison term for defaming the king, his immediate family, or the regent. Critics of the law say it is abused for political purposes, and Move Forward wants changes to rein in such abuses, which it claims actually do damage to the monarchy's reputation.
Royalists soundly reject all efforts to amend the law, and courts have sometimes treated such proposals themselves as tantamount to violating the law. The military and the courts consider themselves stalwart defenders of the monarchy, and the Senate members overwhelmingly share their viewpoint.
If the court agrees that the accused's actions constitute trying to overthrow the constitutional monarchy —a separate provision from Article 112 — they will not be subject to punishment but can be ordered to cease all activities related to their proposed amendment, subject to prosecution if they continue.
