EC submits more docs for MFP case

Says there is no need to provide a witness record.

EC submits more docs for MFP case
On January 31 at congress, The Move Forward Party holds a press conference. ( Photo: Nutthawat Wichieanbut )

The Move Forward Party ( MPF ) petition was submitted by the Election Commission (EC ), and it has additional documents that it wants to disband.

The jury was given the documents relating to the case’s constitutional issues by EC secretary-general Sawaeng Boonmee on Friday, according to EC secretary-general Sawaeng Boonmee.

He claimed that a list of witnesses was unnecessary because the court had already given the group’s position on the stability majeste law, giving the EC ample grounds to pursue the case against the MFP.

Mr. Sawaeng also refrained from voicing the MFP’s claim that the EC’s motion to dissolve the MFP is flawed because it does not properly adhere to the rules set forth in the natural law for social events.

MFP head Chaithawat Tulathon, who objected to the EC’s approach, said on Friday that dissolving a group is a significant shift that necessitates fact-finding and an analysis. He claimed that the EC should interpret the law strictly and not simply.

In response to the explanation made by the EC on Thursday, the opposition group expressed concern that the breakdown case had gone too far.

In response, Mr Sawaeng said on Saturday:” This wait for a decision from the judge”.

In March, the EC requested a ruling from the judge regarding the party’s dissolution. It was responding to the judge’s decision on January 31 that the MFP’s attempts to alter Part 112 showed an intention to destroy the constitutional king.

The EC argued that the group violated Area 92 of the natural law governing political parties in light of the ruling. The area grants the court the authority to dissolve any organization that threatens the democratic king.

The judge granted the reading request on April 3.

Under Sections 92 and 94 of the legislation, the EC requested that the court dissolve the party, withdraw party executives ‘ ability to contest elections, and forbid anyone who violates those right from registering or serving as an executive of a new group for ten years.

Any lese majoreste issue must be filed by the Bureau of the Royal Household, according to the MFP’s proposed revisions.

Any individual or group is at this time lodge a royal libel complaint against anyone else, and police are required to conduct an investigation.

The group claims that as a result, politicians and other powerful people have used the law to suppress opposing viewpoints.

Additionally, the group has urged shorter prison sentences for der uncorrectable beliefs.

A judgment under Section 112 is already sentenced to three to fifteen years in prison.

People who are awaiting trial or appealing their views are frequently cited by judges as a result of their refusing to be free of charge due to the seriousness of the crime.