
The Constitutional Court is likely to conclude two high-profile cases which will decide the fate of the main opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) and that of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin before September, according to court president Nakharin Mektrairat.
The court is scheduled to consider the two cases when it meets on Wednesday. The judges will review evidence submitted by those involved in the cases, and Mr Nakharin said it was premature to say if an inquiry would be held.
"That will be discussed among the judges first," he said, adding he couldn't comment on the matter, because it could be seen as interfering with the court's independence.
Mr Nakharin assured the cases will be thoroughly deliberated, and that every judge in the cases has the freedom to make their own decisions.
When asked about MFP chief adviser Pita Limjaroenrat's remarks about the attempt to dissolve the party, Mr Nakharin said the court is not a party in the conflict and does not wish to respond to any remarks.
Early last month Mr Pita claimed at a press conference that the Constitutional Court has no power to dissolve the MFP and its previous ruling on the party's stance on the lese majeste law was irrelevant to the ongoing case.

Nakharin: Inquiry plans premature
He made the comment despite the Constitutional Court’s warning that all stakeholders in the case — namely, the MFP and the Election Commission (EC) — should refrain from expressing opinions on the issue pending a trial. The court said that doing so could mislead the public and affect the trial.
The case against the MFP was filed by the EC in March, after the court ruled on Jan 31 that the MFP’s efforts to change Section 112 of the Criminal Code reflected an intention to undermine the constitutional monarchy.
Based on the Jan 31 ruling, the EC argued the party violated Section 92 of the organic law on political parties, which gives the court the power to dissolve any party seen as threatening the constitutional monarchy.
The poll agency asked the court to disband the party, ban its executives from standing in future elections and prohibit them from registering or serving as executives of a new party for 10 years, under Sections 92 and 94 of the law. The court accepted the petition for hearing on April 3.
The case against Mr Srettha began when a group of 40 caretaker senators lodged a petition to remove him from office for violating the constitution by appointing Pichit Chuenban as a PM’s Office minister in the latest cabinet reshuffle.
The senators argued that Pichit was unfit to assume a cabinet post because he served time in jail for contempt of court when he represented paroled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a controversial land case back in 2008.
They accused the prime minister and Pichit of ethical violations. The court rejected the case against Pichit because he had already stepped down when they filed the petition, but agreed to hear the case against Mr Srettha.
According to Mr Nakharin, the court is scheduled to hear two other cases on Wednesday, one of which involves the legality of the 2001 Thai-Cambodian memorandum of understanding on joint development in the Gulf of Thailand.
The petition was lodged last month by Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) deputy leader Paiboon Nititawan, who claimed the document had not been approved by the Thai parliament when it was signed, which meant it "has no legal effect from inception".
In a separate forum on Monday, Mr Nakharin said transparency "has its limits" when judicial processes or national security concerns are involved.
"Courts handle sensitive information. If we were to disclose everything, we wouldn't be able to act as arbiters."