Move Forward argues Constitutional Court has no power to dissolve it

Move Forward argues Constitutional Court has no power to dissolve it

Move Forward argues Constitutional Court has no power to dissolve it
Previous Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat holds a press conference on Sunday at the party’s office about the party’s dissolution circumstance that the Constitutional Court has approved for trial. ( Screenshot )

The Move Forward Party ( MPP ) claimed that the Constitutional Court has no authority to dissolve it and that the current dissolution case is unrelated to a previous ruling regarding the party’s position on the lese majeste law.

Pita Limjaroenrat, the MFP’s chief mentor and former president, said at the group’s hq on Sunday that he and his side’s legal matters crew had examined the law and found no provision that gave the Constitutional Court the authority to dissolve a political party or withdraw political rights.

Additionally, Mr. Pita claimed that his party had not had enough opportunity to defend itself against the allegations made in the ongoing breakdown situation.

Additionally, he claimed that the Constitutional Court’s decision on Jan. 31 was unrelated to the current event. The group was advised by the Constitutional Court on January 31 to stop working on the Lese Majeste rules, known as Area 112 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Pita said the warning was concerned with things that had not yet occurred, and that the test of the continuing case involving alleged threats against the constitutional king should concentrate on what has already happened.

The original MFP leader argued that parties should only be disbanded when there is no other way to defend democracy and deal with serious issues.

Attempts to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code may normally be proposed to congress, Mr Pita said, but no such a costs had reached congress.

Even if a bill like this is introduced, congress may halt it on the grounds that it threatens the democratic dynasty. Thus, Mr Pita said, the issue was not an urgent problem that may involve party dissolution.

Despite the Constitutional Court’s demand that the parties refrain from making any comments on the subject while the case is pending, the group held a press event. The court claimed that doing so could change the trial and cause confusion in the judges.

The Election Commission (EC ) in March&nbsp, submitted a petition&nbsp, asking the court to rule on dissolving the party. It was responding to the judge ‘s&nbsp, ruling on Jan 31&nbsp, that Walk Forward’s efforts to change Part 112 of the Criminal Code, known as the lese- guess legislation, indicated an intention to destroy the democratic monarchy.

The EC argued in response to the decision that the group had violated Section 92 of the natural laws governing social events. The area grants the court the authority to dissolve any organization that threatens the democratic king.

The court&nbsp, accepted the petition&nbsp, for reading on April 3.

According to Sections 92 and 94 of the legislation, the petitioner requested that the court dissolve the party, withdraw party executives ‘ right to contest elections, and forbid anyone who violates those right from registering or serving as the party’s managers for ten years.

Any lese-majeste complaints that were proposed by Move Forward had to be submitted by the Bureau of the Royal Household. Any individual or organization is now lodge a royal slander grievance against anyone else, and police are required to conduct an investigation. In consequence, according to the group, politicians and other power figures have used the law to stifle dissenting viewpoints.

The organization has also demanded less harsh words for lese-majeste views.

A judgment under Part 112 is now sentenced to between 3 and 15 years in prison. Authorities often cite the magnitude of the crime, based on the words, as the reason for denying loan to individuals awaiting trial or appealing their convictions.

Imprisoned advocate Netiporn” Boong” Sanesangkhom, 28, died on June 11&nbsp, from the effects of a poverty attack she went on after repeatedly being denied bail, sparking international condemnation. &nbsp,