Thai court clears former PM candidate of violating election law

Thailand’s Constitutional Court has acquitted Pita Limjaroenrat, the popular politician previously barred from assuming the role of prime minister, of any violation of election laws. The court’s decision, with an eight to one majority, clears the way for his reinstatement as a member of the Parliament.

The case centered around allegations that Pita had breached regulations prohibiting parliament members from possessing shares in media companies. Specifically, the scrutiny focused on Pita’s ownership of shares in ITV television station, dormant since 2007, which he claimed to have inherited from his late father.

Pita’s Move Forward Party, known for its progressive stance and surprising success in May’s parliamentary elections, posed a perceived threat to royalists and the military. However, conservative politicians targeted him after unelected senators thwarted his ascent to the premiership.

In July, the court temporarily suspended Pita from parliament following a complaint asserting his unfitness for elections due to the media company shares. Subsequently, he resigned as party leader.

The Constitutional Court’s recent ruling established that ITV lacked a broadcast concession and should not be considered a mass media entity. The ruling stated, “ITV was not operating as a media company on the day the party submitted the respondent’s name for election. Holding the shares did not violate the law. The court has ruled his MP status has not ended.”

Despite the challenges, Pita remains ambitious, expressing his ongoing aspirations for the top political position. He still harbours ambitions for the prime ministerial post, confirming that he is the party’s nominee.

Move Forward Party’s electoral success was grounded in promises to dismantle business monopolies and reform a stringent law imposing lengthy prison sentences for insulting the monarchy. Following nearly a decade of military-controlled governance, their victory signalled a strong mandate for change.

The party supporters showed their happiness, as the party won the elections, but was were forced into opposition. They say voters in Thailand are still very hungry for the reform they voted for.

The triumph represents a significant morale boost for the Harvard-educated politician, seen as a disruptor to the existing order. His party has effectively harnessed the influence of social media, garnering substantial support from a demographic of young, urban, and liberal voters.

Following the court’s decision, Pita expressed his intention to swiftly re-enter parliament, though the exact timeframe remains uncertain. Addressing reporters, he stated, “We are asking the parliament when I am allowed to be back in – there is a discrepancy between two organizations, the court and the parliament. When I am allowed, I will be there.”

However, further hurdles await him. The same court is set to determine next week whether Move Forward’s progressive policies violate the constitution, alleging an attempt to “overthrow the democratic regime of government with the king as the head of state.” Of particular concern are plans to abolish the law penalizing defamation of Thailand’s royal family.

Critics argue that the lese majeste law, carrying a maximum 15-year prison sentence, is frequently misused as a political tool. Both legal challenges have been instigated by conservative politicians in the ongoing two-decade power struggle in Thailand, pitting a coalition of royalists, the military, and established wealthy families against parties elected on populist or progressive agendas.

The current leader of Move Forward, Chaithawat Tulathon, has cautioned that an unfavourable ruling next week could set a precedent for future cases, potentially leading to the dissolution of the party. The party’s predecessor, the Future Forward party, faced a similar fate with its dissolution in 2020, as ruled by the Constitutional Court.

Supporters of Move Forward argue that these cases exemplify tactics employed by the ruling conservative establishment to obstruct or remove political adversaries. They assert the utilization of the courts and ostensibly independent state agencies, such as the Election Commission, as legal instruments in this ongoing political struggle.