The Constitutional Court has agreed to extend the deadline for the Move Forward Party (MFP) to submit documents to defend itself in the party dissolution case by another 15 days.
The main opposition party now has until June 2 to submit written arguments its written defence.
It is the third and final extension granted to the party, which the Election Commission (EC) alleges was involved in an act deemed hostile to the democratic regime with the King as head of state.
The EC petitioned for the party’s dissolution after a Constitutional Court ruling on Jan 31 that said Move Forward’s push for changes to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese-majeste law, indicated an intention to undermine the constitutional monarchy. The EC said the court’s ruling presented grounds for dissolution.
The court accepted the petition on April 3 and subsequently granted a series of 15-day extensions at the party’s request before yesterday’s final extension.
Move Forward won the May 14, 2023, election with 151 House seats but was unable to form a coalition with the runner-up Pheu Thai Party. The latter said it would be impossible to obtain the support of the unelected Senate as long as amending Section 112 remained a core policy of Move Forward.
However, Move Forward refused to budge and Pheu Thai went ahead to form a new coalition. Move Forward now leads the opposition.
Move Forward’s predecessor, the Future Forward Party, was dissolved in 2020 by the charter court following an EC complaint about a campaign finance violation.
In a related development, the Constitutional Court has rejected an EC petition seeking a ruling on the qualifications of Nakhonchai Khunnarong, a former Moe Forward MP for Rayong.
The court said that Mr Nakhonchai had already quit as an MP when the commission submitted the petition so there were no more grounds for the court to review the case.
Mr Nakhonchai resigned in August last year after admitting he had been convicted of theft and served 18 months in prison 24 years ago.
The EC launched its own investigation and found the politician ineligible to run for a House seat, and decided to make him pay for the expenses of the by-election held to replace him.
