“Teerayuth” appeals to the Election Commission to “move forward”

ECT, "Teerayut" appeals to the Constitutional Court's decision, calling on the Election Commission to slam "Move Forward", no longer needing to call for clarification, again to the dissolution of the Royal Thai Government, illegally accepting donations from Buri Charoen Province, and tampering with them. The decision to dissolve Future Forward compared to Clearly specifying the receipt of money from an illegal source. It must be collapsed only. Mr. Teerayut Suwawankasorn, in his capacity as a petitioner to the Constitutional Court, asked to consider a decision in accordance with Section 49 of the Constitution in the case of Mr. Pitha Limjaroenrat. Leader of the Forward Party and Forward Party act to overthrow the government Submitting a copy of the Constitutional Court's decision No. 3/2024 in the case of the Kaewklai Party committing acts of overthrow of the government. According to Section 49 of the full Constitution as certified by the Constitutional Court Office to the Election Commission and the Registr ar of Political Parties. Including submitting a request to inspect the Bhumjaithai Party's receipt of donations. From the limited partnership Buri Charoen Construction According to the decision of the Constitutional Court Shareholding case Not liking Mr. Saksayam Chidchob, causing his ministership to end. Because it is considered that it may be money that was obtained illegally. This caused the dissolution of the Bhumjaithai Party. According to the Political Party Act, Section 92 (3) Mr. Teerayuth said that submitting a full copy of the Constitutional Court's decision to the Election Commission to demand that it consider dissolving the Kao Kao Party as soon as possible. According to the regulations of the Election Commission that he has studied It was found that the time period for each step was clearly specified. In total, it should not exceed 90 days from the date the committee was set up to investigate. A decision can be submitted to the court and it is seen that the Election Commission does not need to i nvite the accused to explain again. Because both Mr. Pitha Limcharoenrat Party leaders advanced at that time and Mr. Chaithawat Tulathon, current leader of the Forward Party Various experts as well as the security department The information has been fully explained to the Constitutional Court. In the court's decision, the incident in which members of the Kaew Klai Party appeared to do activities together with youth groups showed that they were connected to the same network. It is only one example. But in the court process, information was received from security agencies, professors, and various experts. which the court allowed him to read But cannot make a photocopy. Because it is a national security secret. If it comes out, it may be criticized in an dishonest way. The information found that there were more linked events than the court read. and disseminated through the public However, it is believed that Election Commission as an inspection agency You can request this information from the court. Therefore, there is no need to call the accused to examine him again. Mr. Teerayut also said that he is still following the developments. of various political groups There is movement regarding the amendment of Section 112, including the proposed draft. Amnesty Act Currently, there is still a debate about whether defendants in Section 112 cases will receive benefits or not. He is of the opinion that Section 112 is not a political case. But it is a case in which the Constitutional Court has already laid down the norm. that it is the destruction and overthrow of government Therefore, if this amnesty law is drafted People who commit crimes in Section 112 cases also receive amnesty. It will be carried out through legal channels. However, we are now following up on the consideration of the matter in the committee level. In order to see who has an opinion on this matter. By comparing the decisions of the Constitutional Court As for the case of the leaders of the Progressive Party, they did not show any concern. that the par ty would be dissolved from such a case and ready to form a new political party I saw that it was a right that could be done. But the operation of the party must be in accordance with the law. The use of the right to freedom of amendment under Section 112 has not been prohibited by the Constitutional Court. But it must be done correctly and according to the law. Do not use your freedom beyond the limits. He will continue to follow up on this matter. Mr. Teerayut also said that for submission to the Election Commission to investigate the Bhumjaithai Party. Because according to the decision of the Constitutional Court, it is clearly specified. that Mr. Saksayam Still a shareholder In Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership And the fact that the partnership donated money to the Bhumjaithai Party in 2022 in the amount of 6 million baht may have been money obtained with the intent to deceive. Hidden or concealed legal acts Violating the Constitution, Section 9 regarding Conflicts of Interest, Section 187. Th erefore, the said amount of donations to the Bhumjaithai Party may be illegally obtained. or have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is an illegal source, which Section 72 of the Political Party Act Prohibits political parties and persons holding positions in political parties accepting donations of money, property or any other benefits. knowing or should have known that it was obtained illegally or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is an illegal source, he therefore asks the Election Commission and the Registrar to take action against the Bhumjaithai Party without discrimination This is because the Constitutional Court has previously ruled to set a precedent in the decision number 5/63 in the case of dissolving the Future Forward Party, stating that 'the Future Forward Party's borrowing money Therefore there is an intention to avoid it. Accepting donations of money, property, or any other benefits according to Section 66 when such donations are prohibited. Therefore, it is a donation o f money. Knowing or should know that it was obtained illegally according to the Political Party Act 2017. In this case, it can be considered that the Future Forward Party violated Section 72 and was the reason for ordering the dissolution of the Kao Ka Dai Party according to Section 92. 'The case of the Future Forward Party The court determined the source of the money. that it is the source of illegitimate In the case of Mr. Saksayam who proceeded to create a process that the court ruled that There is hiding and concealing the donation of money. Even though the law has laid down the guidelines that any juristic person who is related to the Minister is prohibited May lead to conflict of interest. To maintain honesty in public administration. Therefore, I brought the case of the Future Forward Party to present to the Election Commission for the Election Commission to conduct a comparison with the consideration of the Bhumjaithai Party's case. to complete the operation of Election Commission does not expand too much. Court decision until causing a delay Or must we wait for clarification from other agencies, such as accepting the work of Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership as a bid or not? And was the money generated from that crime donated to political parties or not? If so, there will be a delay because the decision of the Constitutional Court has already stated this. that the source of the money that Buri Charoen Construction Limited Partnership donated for the Bhumjaithai Party to be illegal. It is enough for the Election Commission to make a decision. Source: Thai News Agency