Ahead of the Constitutional Court’s verdict on a petition seeking to dissolve the Move Forward Party (MFP), the Party has defended itself, asserting that the Court does not have the authority to order dissolution, and that the Election Commission (EC)’s petition is unlawful.

Since the Constitutional Court accepted the EC’s petition seeking to dissolve the Party, the MFP has cemented its defence against dissolution, reiterating that in no circumstances, under the law, should the Party be dissolved. The MFP also affirmed that it intends to restore the bond between the general public and the monarchy.

The petition was filed by the EC with the Constitutional Court after the Court itself ruled on 31 January that the campaign by the MFP and its former leader Pita Limjaroenrat to amend the royal defamation law is treasonous. If dissolved, the executive members will be banned from politics for ten years.

The Party’s nine main arguments are as follows:

Political party dissolution is not within the Court’s jurisdiction 

The Party argues that the Constitutional Court lacks the authority to dissolve the Party. The Constitution determines the Court’s specific jurisdiction and no Article in the current Constitution explicitly stipulates that the Court has the authority to deliberate this case.

The EC’s petition is unlawful

According to the law, the procedure for submitting a petition must be completed by the EC when it is presented with evidence by the political party registrar. Nevertheless, in this case, the petition was submitted by the EC despite the fact that the registrar had not finished gathering facts and evidence, and the registrar’s opinions on the case were ignored. The EC’s petition, therefore, is unlawful.

The Court’s ruling on 31 January does not bind the Court in this case

The Party argues that the EC’s petition is considered a separate matter from the Court’s ruling on 31 January as the EC submitted new accusations that the Court did not address or deliberate earlier.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the MFP’s action was to exercise improperly its constitutional rights and liberties in order to overthrow the democratic regime with the King as Head of State and ordered it to stop the campaign. The EC claimed that its petition was founded on the Court’s ruling.

However, the EC accused the Party of two offences: overthrowing the democratic regime with the King as Head of State and performing actions against the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, without seeking out facts and evidence, or even allowing the Party to acknowledge or clarify the new accusations.

Apart from the campaign, other accusations are not actions by the Party

The evidence in the Court’s ruling also highlighted some members’ actions related to the royal defamation law, such as participating in pro-democracy protests or bailing out detained activists charged with royal defamation. These are the actions of individuals, whereas the campaign to amend the law is the only decision of the Party.

The MFP insisted that the only actions that can be regarded as the Party’s responsibility are those taken following resolutions of its executive members or when the law explicitly stipulates that an individual’s action is considered an action of the Party.

The MFP also stated that the members whose actions were cited in the evidence have never been questioned and that the evidence did not support the claim that their actions were ordered by the Party.

The EC’s accusations about the campaign are baseless.

The Party’s purpose in amending the royal defamation law is not to employ force or violence to change the form of government, as the EC accused. Instead, it will be accomplished through the normal legislative process, with the approval of the lower and upper houses in parliament.

The MFP also added that even the EC itself was aware of the Party’s campaign and had never ordered the Party to change or refrain from its campaign.

The Party’s actions are not commensurate with the penalty it would face

The Party argues that dissolution should be the last resort to prevent severe consequences in the future if the accused actions are successful, and that tangible and credible evidence must be presented. However, in terms of law, the Party’s action was not serious enough for it to face a dissolution order.

Although the Court found that the MFP’s action was treasonous, it ordered the Party to cease such action, which the Party did.

The Constitutional Court does not have the power to decide a period of political disqualification

The MFP stated that the 2017 Organic Act on Political Parties does not stipulate a term limit for prohibiting a party’s executive members from running for election. The Court has no authority to make a determination in this matter.

The disqualification period should not exceed five years

In the past, the 2007 Organic Act on Political Parties imposed a five-year disqualification in political party dissolution cases. Given this is the same case, the disqualification period should not exceed five years. The Party noted that the ten-year timeframe is not commensurate with the scope of the Party’s action.

The penalty for executive members should align with the period in which the action occurred.

The EC requested the Court to disqualify three groups of executive members: those holding office from 2021-2023, those in office from 15-22 September 2023, and the incumbents since 23 September 2023. However, the accusation concerns actions by the Party which took place during the tenure of the only first and the second sets of executive members.

According to the law, individuals shall be liable only for actions that they commit. In this case, the Court should not rule against incumbent executive members.

“A democratic regime with the King as Head of State can remain stable not by undermining the people’s right to freedom of expression and the fundamental principles and values of democracy. On the contrary, preserving a democratic regime with the King as Head of State must embrace diverse opinions in society in solidarity,” said Pita Limjaroenrat at the Party’s press conference on closing arguments on 2 August.