Bangkok: Pol. Col. Tawee Sodsong, leader of the Prachachart Party, has publicly criticized the recent decision by the Election Commission (EC) concerning the controversial Senate election collusion case, emphasizing that the EC's resolution should not supersede the Constitution. On Facebook, Tawee stated that while individuals may be protected as witnesses, they cannot be exempted from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
According to Thai News Agency, the EC voted 5-2 to dismiss allegations surrounding the "Senate collusion case," yet questions remain regarding the constitutionality of their actions. The dismissed allegations implicated party executives and political officeholders in manipulating Senate elections and candidates consenting to such interference. Despite the dismissal, the core issue persists: does the EC's resolution uphold constitutional supremacy?
The EC's decision involved excluding two senators, identified as witnesses coded 21/26 and 22/26, from serving as witnesses. Witness 21/26, a candidate from the Education Group, achieved high scores in election rounds, yet investigations revealed suspicious ballot patterns and potential vote rigging linked to Rajamangala University of Technology. Similarly, Witness 22/26, from the Self-employed individuals group, faced similar allegations with pre-printed candidate information and rigged ballots.
Under Section 65 of the Organic Act on the Acquisition of Senate Membership, the EC can designate individuals as witnesses if their testimony aids in proving the guilt of other key perpetrators. This designation suggests the EC viewed these witnesses as involved in wrongdoing, necessitating further investigation to identify other perpetrators.
Should allegations of orchestrating voting fraud and rigging the election process be substantiated, it could point to a coordinated effort undermining the Senate's selection process, challenging democratic legislative sovereignty. While Section 65 offers witness immunity, it does not exempt individuals from scrutiny regarding election fairness.
Articles 226 of the Constitution and 62 of the Organic Act require the EC to petition the Supreme Court when credible evidence suggests election fraud. Given the witnesses' confessions and patterns linking them to election manipulation, the EC should present the case to the Supreme Court to assess the integrity of the elections.
The EC's decision to designate the two senators as witnesses does not absolve them from the Supreme Court's scrutiny. The EC can offer immunity for criminal testimony but cannot conceal evidence or evade constitutional obligations. As Tawee emphasized, while witness protection exists, it cannot override the pursuit of truth and justice under constitutional law.