Move Forward Party Controversy: Pita Limjaroenrat Challenges Dissolution Amid Legal Battle

Critics have accused the Move Forward Party (MFP) of trying to paint itself as a victim of political persecution as it grapples with a case that could lead to its disbandment. Last Sunday, the MFP held a press conference at its headquarters, where it articulated arguments countering the allegations leveled against it in the dissolution case.

This move came despite the Constitutional Court’s stern warning that involved parties—namely, the MFP and the Election Commission (EC)—should refrain from sharing opinions on the matter during an ongoing trial. According to the court, such actions could skew public perception and influence the trial’s outcome.

During the press conference, the MFP asserted that the court lacks the authority to dissolve the party, and argued that its previous stance on the lese majeste law was irrelevant to the disbandment case. Pita Limjaroenrat, MFP’s chief adviser and former leader, stated that after meticulous study of the constitution, his legal team found no clause empowering the court to disband a party or strip it of political rights.

Pita also highlighted that the party had struggled to get complete information about the dissolution case, which hampered their ability to defend against the accusations. This situation persisted despite several deadline extensions granted by the court for the party’s defense submission.

Pita responded to the court’s caution against efforts to revise Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law. He clarified that the warning pertained to something that hadn’t yet occurred, whereas the dissolution case should focus on past actions.

However, political analysts noted that the MFP’s arguments didn’t hold much sway with them, casting doubt on the party’s chances of escaping disbandment. In a twist, the court announced it would hear the MFP disbandment case the following day, further heightening the suspense.

Playing the Victim?

Wanwichit Boonprong, a political science lecturer at Rangsit University, commented to the Bangkok Post that the MFP seemed to be portraying itself as unjustly treated and a victim of political persecution. “This also shows the party refuses to accept the court’s previous ruling on the lese majeste law and is trying to link that with the current dissolution case,” he observed.

Offering his perspective, Wanwichit speculated on MFP’s future: “If the party is dissolved, it might reemerge under a different name with its popularity intact. Yet, it could weaken due to the political ban on several key figures.” He also mentioned that the party aims to be a significant counterbalance to major players such as the Pheu Thai Party and conservative factions. Even if the MFP’s current form is dissolved, its rebranded avatar might perform better if the existing government fails to meet public expectations.

Unconvincing Arguments

Pattana Reonchaidee, a lecturer at Ramkhamhaeng University’s faculty of law, criticized the MFP’s defense approach. He told the Bangkok Post that the party misstepped by telling the court how to proceed with the hearing instead of focusing on substantively defending the allegations. “Their arguments were weak. The MFP will find it quite challenging in court,” he said.

Jade Donavanik, a legal scholar and dean at Dhurakij Pundit University, underscored that the case against the MFP was rooted in the Political Parties Act, not Section 112 of the Criminal Code. “The MFP is attempting to cause confusion by conflating charter court proceedings with those of the Criminal Court,” he explained, adding that the party was accused under Section 92 of the Political Parties Act, not under Section 112.

Jade, an adviser to the last constitution drafting committee, dismissed the MFP’s claim that the Constitutional Court lacked the power to dissolve the party, asserting that such authority is granted under the Political Parties Act.

Echoing similar views, Komsan Phokong, an academic and former member of the 2007 constitution drafting assembly, stated that the court holds jurisdiction over the party dissolution case. “The case involves allegations that the MFP’s actions aimed to undermine the constitutional monarchy. Only the charter court can adjudicate on this matter,” he said, adding that the MFP’s arguments were unconvincing.

The EC had submitted a petition in March asking the court to dissolve the MFP following the court’s January ruling that the party’s attempts to amend Section 112 suggested an intention to undermine the constitutional monarchy. Based on this ruling, the EC argued that the MFP violated Section 92 of the organic law on political parties.

The petition requested the court to dissolve the MFP, revoke the rights of its executives to stand for election, and bar individuals who lose those rights from serving as executives of a new party for ten years under Sections 92 and 94 of the law.

MFP’s proposed amendments to Section 112 included a requirement that any complaints must be filed by the Bureau of the Royal Household instead of allowing any person to file such complaints. Currently, the law enables any individual or group to file a royal defamation complaint, obligating the police to investigate. The party argued that this provision has been exploited by politicians and authority figures to quash dissenting opinions.

The MFP also advocated for reducing sentences for lese majeste convictions. Currently, a Section 112 conviction carries a sentence of 3-15 years, with the courts often denying bail to accused individuals due to the perceived severity of the offence.