The National Anti-Corruption Commission has found former deputy secretary-general of the Election Commission Nat Laosisawakul negligent over the late arrival of 1,542 advance votes from Thai citizens in New Zealand prior to the March 24, 2019 election, resulting in their ballots not being counted.
NACC secretary-general Niwatchai Kasemmongkol said on Monday that a committee had investigated Mr Nat and two Foreign Ministry officials for neglect of duty in failing to ensure that 1,542 advance voting ballot papers in a diplomatic pouch sent by the Thai embassy in Wellington for delivery by a Thai Airways flight were collected and counted on March 23, 2019, despite knowing that the pouch had arrived that day.
As a result, the Election Commission had decided that the 1,542 ballots could not be included in the tally because they arrived too late, under Section 114 of the MP Election Act (2018).
The committee found that Mr Nat, whose job included overseeing advance voting from abroad, was informed on March 22, 2019 that a diplomatic bag from the Thai embassy in Wellington might not arrive in time for counting on March 23 due to problems.
He was informed by officials under him several times that the diplomatic bag could arrive late. However, Mr Nat did not take any action to find a way out or report the problem to his superiors.
When the diplomatic bag arrived at Suvarnabhumi airport on March 23 at 8.50pm, Mr Nat was iformed but he did not give any order for the collection of the bag, nor did he inform his superiors about the bag's late arrival or find a way of solving the problem.
The bag was picked up only on March 24, and delivered to the Election Commission (EC) the following day.
This resulted in the EC's decision that the 1,542 advance voting ballots from New Zealand could not be counted.
Mr Niwatchai said there were grounds to establish that the then-secretary-general, Mr Nat, had committed a serious breach of discipline, causing serious damage to the EC.
As for the two Foreign Ministry officials also accused of neglect of duty, the committee found they had properly performed their duty. There were no grounds to find them negligent.
Mr Nat, however, maintains his innocence and says it was a technical glitch that was to blame.