Court prods attorney-general over Section 112 push

Court prods attorney-general over Section 112 push

Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat, centre, campaigns for votes at the Victory Monument on May 4. (Photo: Nutthawat Wicheanbut)
Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat, centre, campaigns for votes at the Victory Monument on May 4. (Photo: Nutthawat Wicheanbut)

The Constitutional Court has asked the attorney-general for an update on a petition lodged against the Move Forward Party (MFP) and its leader Pita Limjaroenrat over their policy to amend the lese majeste law.

Originally filed by Theerayut Suwankesorn, the petition seeks to compel the court to order the MFP and Mr Pita, who is the party's prime ministerial candidate, to block the move as it may contravene the charter.

Mr Theerayut has suggested the MFP's plan is a breach of Section 49, which prohibits people from using their rights and freedoms to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

It also states that an individual who learns of such an act can ask the attorney-general to forward the matter to the Constitutional Court. In case the attorney-general rejects the petition or fails to take action within 15 days, the person can lodge a petition directly with the Constitutional Court.

In his petition, Mr Theerayut claimed he filed the petition with the attorney-general on May 30 and decided to bring the matter to the Constitutional Court because the attorney-general had not acted within 15 days.

Mr Theerayut cited the Constitutional Court's ruling on calls for reforms of the monarchy by protest leaders to support his petition.

The court ruled in November 2021 that the actions of three protest leaders at a rally at Thammasat University in August 2020 were an attempt to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

At the rally, Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul read out a set of 10 demands, including reform of the monarchy. The incident shocked many people, and the protesters were accused of crossing the line.

Then, Natthaporn Toprayoon, a lawyer and former adviser to the chief ombudsman, petitioned the court to consider the actions of human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, Panupong Jadnok and Ms Panusaya.

The judges ruled the actions of the trio had covert intentions to exercise their rights and liberties to undermine and overthrow the democratic regime with the King as head of state, and the trio were ordered to halt such a move.

Do you like the content of this article?