Former Senate speaker Nikhom Wairatpanich and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) yesterday delivered their closing statements before the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in their bids to persuade the assembly to rule tomorrow in their favour.
However, former House speaker Somsak Kiatsuranon waived his right to defend himself for the last time against accusations that he, along with Mr Nikhom, committed serious breaches of the 2007 charter, ethical conduct and parliamentary procedure when chairing joint sittings on a charter amendment.
The NLA is scheduled to rule tomorrow on whether to impeach Mr Nikhom and Mr Somsak over their roles in parliamentary debates on a charter amendment bill to have a fully selected Senate.
An impeachment ruling means the former parliament members would be banned from politics for five years.
Mr Nikhom told the NLA he performed his duties in line with the 2007 charter and parliamentary regulations. He said he was protected by Section 130 of the 2007 charter in performing his duties.
He also insisted that he gave those opposed to the amendment enough time to express their opinions. He claimed the charge that the amendment bid was self-serving was purely "speculative".
Declaring he was no longer interested in politics, Mr Nikhom said he would respect the NLA's decision. He asked the NLA members to rule with fairness.
In his closing statement, NACC member Vicha Mahakhun said Mr Nikhom exercised his authority unconstitutionally when he refused to let all MPs signed up to debate the amendment draft to speak.
He also said Mr Nikhom failed to adhere to the rule of law.
Mr Vicha also accused Mr Somsak of malfeasance and abuse of authority by putting up for the debate an amendment that was different from the one proposed by the MPs.
According to Mr Vicha, the bill's content was changed without the knowledge of its supporters.
Mr Somsak failed to verify the version of the bill which was a serious mistake in his role as the parliament president.
Mr Somsak also cut short the meetings and, by doing so, denied MPs the right to contest the amendment, which was in violation of the parliament meeting regulations, Mr Vicha said.