In the Constitutional Court verdict to dissolve the Move Forward Party (MFP), the Court has claimed that ‘the MFP’s campaign sought to take advantage of the monarchy to win the election,’ while it also warned representatives of foreign governments to follow diplomatic etiquette when expressing their opinions on this matter.

The Court dismissed all legal arguments raised by the MFP against its dissolution and ruled to dissolve the poll-winning and largest opposition party. The Party’s 11 executive members in office from March 2021 to 31 January 2024, including its former leader and the Party’s prime ministerial candidate Pita Limjaroenrat, are banned from running for election or forming a new party for 10 years from 7 August 2024.

The Court asserted that it does hold the authority to deliberate the case, claiming that the Organic Act on Procedures of the Constitution Court allows the Court to deliberate other cases within its jurisdiction. In addition, the 2017 Organic Act on Political Parties stipulates that the Court has the power to issue orders to dissolve political parties .

In response to the MFP’s defence that the Election Commission (EC)’s petition is unlawful, the Court argued that in this case, the EC has “credible evidence”, and referred to the Court’s ruling on 31 January; it, therefore, can file a petition directly with the Court.

The Court also determined that the current case and the ruling on 31 January are not separate matters. Instead, they are the same constitutional case based on the same grounds of action and with the same complainant. It also stated that the Court’s ruling on 31 January must be followed in this case as stipulated in the Constitution.

The Court found on 31 January that the Party’s action was an unlawful exercise of its constitutional rights and liberties in order to overthrow the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, according to Article 49 of the Constitution. Even though the Court ordered the Party to stop such actions, the fact is that the offence under the Article had been successfully committed by that time, irrespective of any potential consequences that could occur.

As for individual party members’ actions, such as attending protests or bailing out activists charged with royal defamation, the Court argued that these actions, even though not based on Party resolutions, are considered the Party’s ‘indirect wrongdoing’ by using members as its representatives.

“[The Party] intends to separate the institution [monarchy] and the nation from each other, which poses a significant danger to state security. It diminishes the protection of the institution, takes advantage of the institution in the hope of gaining votes in order to win the election, and intends to turn the institution into the opponent of the people.” The Court stated that this leads to the overthrow of the democratic regime, which aligns with the Court’s ruling on 31 January.

“The law needs to stop the destruction of the basic principles of the democratic regime with the King as Head of State. The Constitutional Court must inevitably order the dissolution the accused Party,” said the Court.

Ambassadors and senior diplomats from a number of Bangkok embassies had invited Pita Limjaroenrat to a closed door meeting on Friday 2 August before the verdict to discuss the "ongoing crisis of democracy". Contact with foreigners did not figure in the charges against the MFP and the foreign diplomats have of course not been charged with anything, but it seems to have provoked an irrelevant and rather peevish rebuke in the middle of the judgement:

“Even if academics, politicians, or diplomats of other countries at whatever level have their own constitutions and domestic laws as well as regulations that differ according to the context of each country, the expression of any opinion must show universal diplomatic etiquette,” the Court stated in its ruling.

The Court finally ruled to dissolve the MFP based on the two serious offences under Article 92 of the 2017 Organic Act on Political Parties: (1) overthrow of the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, and (2) action that may be adverse to the democratic regime with the King as Head of State.

“Thailand is governed by the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, adhering to the international rule of law … and protects human rights … and the independence of the judiciary. … At the same time …  amendments of or additions to the Constitution that change the democratic regime or alter the form of state cannot be made,” noted the Court in the final part of its ruling.

However, it should be noted that the royal defamation law which the MFP was found guilty of trying improperly to amend is Section 112 of the Criminal Code and not part of the Constitution.