The Move Forward Party (MFP) has vowed to defy a warning from the Constitutional Court not to voice its opinions in public in a way that could affect court proceedings, as it faces a case that could bring about its dissolution.
Party leader Chaithawat Tulathon insisted on Thursday that it would go ahead with a planned press conference on Sunday to explain to the public how it will mount its defence in the case.
“The explanation will not go beyond what has also been clarified in the defence statement that was submitted to the court. The press conference should not affect the court’s deliberation,” Mr Chaithawat said.
The court will hear the case next Wednesday but it is not known when it will issue a ruling.
The court received the defence statement from the main opposition party on Tuesday, after granting the last of three 15-day extensions.
It advised the Election Commission (EC), which is the plaintiff, and the party to refrain from making any public statements in a way that could influence public opinion or affect court deliberations.
Mr Chaithawat said the party had several witnesses to present before the court.
“It is up to the court to decide whether to allow [them],” he said.
The EC submitted a petition asking the court to dissolve the party in March. It was responding to the court’s ruling on Jan 31 in which Move Forward was found to have pushed for changes to Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese-majeste law, indicating an intention to undermine the constitutional monarchy.
Based on the ruling, the EC argued the party violated Section 92 of the organic law on political parties. The section gives the court the power to dissolve any party seen as threatening the constitutional monarchy.
The EC asked the court to disband the party, revoke the rights of party executives to run in elections and prohibit anyone who loses those rights from registering or serving as executives of a new party for 10 years, under Sections 92 and 94 of the law.
The amendments proposed by Move Forward included a requirement that any lese-majeste complaint must be filed by the Bureau of the Royal Household. Currently, any individual or group can file a royal defamation complaint against anyone else, and police are obliged to investigate it. As a result, the party has said, the law has been used by politicians and other authority figures to stifle dissenting opinions.
The party has also called for reduced sentences for lese-majeste convictions.
A conviction under Section 112 currently carries a sentence of between 3 and 15 years. Courts often cite the severity of the offence, based on the sentences, as the reason for denying bail to people awaiting trial or appealing their convictions.