MFP vows bold defence against dissolution threat
Move Forward Party (MFP) chief Chaithawat Tulathon declared the party’s unwavering resolve to counter the looming spectre of dissolution, revealing plans to submit a comprehensive rebuttal to the Constitutional Court following the upcoming Songkran festivities.
The 45 year old Chaithawat affirmed that the MFP would not simply lodge its defence with the court but would also make it accessible to the public, ensuring transparency in their battle against adversity.
The announcement came hot on the heels of the Constitutional Court’s decision to proceed with the case lodged by the Election Commission, accusing MFP of breaching Article 92 of the political parties’ organic law. The allegations stemmed from election campaigns spearheaded by former party leader Pita Limjaroenrat, aimed at amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as the lese majeste law.
Undeterred by the legal onslaught, Chaithawat assured reporters that the court’s decision would not derail the party’s legislative duties. He underscored MFP MPs’ steadfast commitment as they engaged in a two-day debate against the government.
The Songkhla-born politician revealed that preparations to tackle the case had been underway for some time, with the party’s legal team and key members primed to craft an airtight defence upon receipt of the court’s official summons. With a deadline of 15 days, the party aimed to dispatch its defence shortly after the Songkran break, simultaneously releasing it to the public.
Emphasising confidence in their position, Chaithawat conveyed the party’s resolute determination to confront the challenge head-on. Despite previous setbacks, he highlighted the existence of factual and legal grounds to mount a vigorous defence, reported The Nation.
“We have discussed this extensively, and now we are geared up to tackle the situation.”
Chaithawat rejected the notion that the court’s prior ruling signalled an inevitable demise for the party.
“While the court admonished our campaign, it does not equate to granting the EC’s dissolution plea outright. We possess both factual evidence and legal avenues to safeguard our existence.”
