The Move Forward Party (MFP) may not survive but will try its best to fight its dissolution case in court, says deputy party leader Pol Maj Gen Supisarn Bhakdinarinath.
On April 3, the court accepted an EC petition seeking the MFP's dissolution under Section 92 of the Political Parties Act and gave the MFP 15 days to file its defence.
On April 18, the court agreed to extend the deadline by another 15 days to May 3. But the opposition party asked the court again on April 24 to give it another 15 days.
Under the Political Parties Act, the EC is empowered to propose the dissolution of a party to the court if it has obtained enough evidence of an act deemed hostile to the democratic regime with the King as head of state.
This action was taken in response to a Constitutional Court ruling on Jan 31 in which the MFP was found to have pushed for changes to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law, that indicated an intention to undermine the constitutional monarchy.
As an agency enforcing the law, the EC acted against the MFP as the Jan 31 ruling presented grounds for dissolution. In its ruling on Jan 31, the court also ordered the MFP to cease all attempts to rewrite Section 112 and prohibited it from amending the section through a non-legislative process.
Pol Maj Gen Supisarn Bhakdinarinath
It said campaigning on the issue is considered an attempt to end the constitutional monarchy and violates the constitution.
The judges pointed to past actions of Pita Limjaroenrat, the party's former leader, as well as those conducted by the MFP in general, including its applications to grant bail for suspects in lese majeste cases.
The court said Mr Pita and the party tried to either change or revoke Section 112 when its 44 MPs submitted a bill to amend it on March 25, 2021.
Pol Maj Gen Supisarn told the Bangkok Post the Jan 31 ruling was intended to deter any attempts to end the constitutional monarchy. "Such action has not actually happened yet," he said.
"The party was not involved in any attempt to overthrow [the constitutional monarchy]. We only carried out our duty as MPs and followed legislative procedures [when submitting the bill to amend Section 112]," he said.
"We have complied with the court's order [for the party to cease all attempts to amend Section 112]," he said.
"But if the judges use the same logic [as in the Jan 31 ruling], they may decide to disband the party," Pol Maj Gen Supisarn said.
"The party is prepared. Let's wait and see people's reaction. The more the party is suppressed, the more it will grow," he said.
"The number of party MPs may increase from 150 currently to 250 in the next election," he said.
Even if the party was disbanded, he said, only a few party members were likely to shift their allegiances and defect to other parties. "Many of our MPs are steadfast in the party's ideology."
If a party is disbanded, its MPs are required by law to join new parties within 60 days or lose their MP status.
Pattana Reonchaidee, a lecturer at Ramkhamhaeng University's faculty of law, said the judges who will rule on the dissolution case are those who delivered the ruling on Jan 21.
In light of this, they will not take long to consider the case as the ruling in the dissolution case is expected to be based on the previous ruling, he said.
"I believed the ruling will be delivered sooner rather than later and it may not favour the MFP," Mr Pattana said.
If the court rules to disband the party, it must provide a clear explanation to back its ruling, he said. "Dissolving a party that won the most House seats is a big issue. The case will draw the attention of many people," Mr Pattana said.
The MFP won the most votes, 14.4 million in total, in the May 14 election, winning 151 seats in the House.
"If the party is disbanded, some people may feel it was treated unfairly and have sympathy for it. The MFP may get more votes in the next election," he said.
Pattana Reonchaidee