MFP Pita defends himself over shareholding charge at Constitutional Court
Pita Limjaroenrat, the advisory chairman of the Move Forward Party (MFP), defends himself at the Constitutional Court over the charges against him for the iTV shareholding case.
The Court was poised to dissect his involvement in the beleaguered iTV – a spectacle eagerly anticipated by political enthusiasts.
At precisely 9.10am, Pita, exuding an air of calm confidence, addressed the media.
“I’ve been waiting for this day for a long time.”
At 9.30am, the courtroom buzzed with anticipation as the examination of witnesses in this high-stakes case loomed large.
Undeterred by the legal storm brewing, Pita took the stage, insisting he had nothing to fear.
“What I can disclose to the media is that iTV is not a media firm as it has not run a media business since 2007.”
With a hint of defiance, he expressed his unwavering belief in receiving justice from the court.
With 16 years since his father’s demise, the former MFP leader seized the opportunity to finally break his silence on the matter.
“It is a good sign, and I have been waiting for this day for a long time.”
The courtroom, a theatre of legal drama, witnessed a show of solidarity as Pita’s supporters rallied around him. Hugs and placards of support painted a vivid picture of the political heavyweight’s journey into the legal battleground.
Adding fuel to the political fire, Election Commission secretary-general Sawang Boonmee made an early entrance at 8.40am, offering no words to the curious press corps. The intrigue surrounding the case reached fever pitch on July 19 when the Constitutional Court suspended Pita, then MFP leader and prime ministerial candidate, over allegations involving his inherited iTV shares, reported Bangkok Post.
The Court’s decision stemmed from a petition filed by the Election Commission (EC), pointing fingers at Pita’s shareholding. The constitution’s stern prohibition against parliamentarians holding media stocks cast a shadow over Pita’s political aspirations. He staunchly argued that the shares, part of his late father’s estate, were managed as an executor and subsequently transferred to relatives.
With a steely resolve, the former MFP leader questioned the EC’s motives, challenging the fairness of his suspension. Drawing parallels with similar cases in 2020, he questioned why other MPs facing media shareholding complaints were not similarly suspended.
