Supreme Court Accepts Objection in Move Forward Party Case, Dismisses Petition Against ‘Teng’

Bangkok: The Supreme Court has accepted the objection in the case against 44 former Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Move Forward Party and has dismissed the petition regarding the order to suspend 'Teng' from duty.According to Thai News Agency, the first hearing took place at the Supreme Court on Ratchadamnoen Road, where the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) had filed a petition seeking a ruling on allegations against the MPs. The allegations involve serious violations of ethical standards due to their participation in signing a draft amendment to Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Present for the plaintiff was Mr. Pattanapong Chanpetchapool, Assistant Secretary-General of the NACC. Most defendants were represented by lawyers, with some former MPs, including Mr. Theerachai Panthumas, Mr. Nitipol Phiwaem, Pol. Maj. Gen. Supisal Phakdeenarunath, Mr. Suthep U-on, and Mr. Somkiat Thanomsin, attending in person.Following the deliberation, the court accepted the objections from all 44 objectors a nd scheduled a hearing to examine evidence on August 4th at 9:30 AM. Both parties have been instructed to submit their proposed investigation procedures, and any requests for subpoenas must be submitted by July 25th.The court has planned the first witness hearing for August 25, followed by subsequent hearings on September 22 and October 27, 2026, at 9:30 AM. The trial will hear from a total of 17 witnesses and is expected to continue for approximately one year.Additionally, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition from Mr. Nopruj Worachitwutikul, former leader of the White Pigeon 2006 group. The petition requested the court to order Mr. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut, leader of the People's Party, to cease performing his duties, alleging a violation of a court order. This allegation stemmed from the People's Party's messages regarding the Privy Council's involvement in a disaster committee meeting and its criticism of the government on the "blue regime" issue.Upon review, the court found that Mr. Nopruj was not a party to the case, and the presented facts lacked sufficient evidence to change the original order, leading to the dismissal of the petition.