The Constitutional Court has set Jan 31 to deliver its ruling on a petition against former Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat and the party, accused of seeking to end Thailand's constitutional democracy with the King as head of state through their election campaign to amend the lese majeste law.
The petition was filed by Teerayut Suwankesorn, a former lawyer for former monk Suwit Thongprasert, better known as Buddha Issara. He alleged the campaign to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese majeste law, was in violatirion of Section 49 of the constitution.
On Monday, Mr Pita, advisory chairman of Move Forward, and MFP leader Chaithawat Tulathon appeared before the court for cross examination.
The court set 2pm on Jan 31 for its ruling on the case.
Mr Pita said before testifying to the court that the party's policy to amend Section 112 was lawful and constitutional.
He said the party was not seeking to overthrow the country's administration and he would explain the policy in detail in court, adding that the move was intended to calm the political crisis.
Mr Pita said the petition did not seek to dissolve his party. It only wanted the party to stop seeking to amend Section 112.
"I do not worry that the ruling in this case could lead to another petition for the party to be dissolved. I have no idea who would do that, it's a matter of the future. I am sure I can clarify to the court that the policy is not to overthrow the country's administration," he said.
Mr Chaithawat also said the petition was intended only to make the party stop proposing that policy.
Asked what the party would do if the court ordered it to abandon the policy to amend Section 112, Mr Chaithawat said he would have to first study the ruling in detail.
Mr Teerayut, the petitioner, said he was satisfied with the court's examination.
Asked whether he would file another petition seeking to dissolve the Move Forward Party if the court rules in his favour, Mr Teerayut said he had not thought about doing so.
He said the petition was aimed at blocking a way of violating the royal institution, not the dissolution of Move Forward.
