Thailand’s Election Commission (EC) is yet to consider the complaint filed by political activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, accusing Move Forward party leader Pita Limjaroenrat of holding 42,000 shares in the iTV media company which, if true, would disqualify him from contesting the May 14^th general election.

EC Chairman Itthiporn Boonpracong said today (Wednesday) that Pita’s share-holding case is still in being considered by election officials, who are to decide whether there are enough grounds to forward it to the election commission.

He said that the election commission is legally-bound to consider the complaint, after it is evaluated by election officials, to determine if there was a violation of election law.

Lately, Pita has admitted that he transferred the iTV shares to the other family heirs, to prevent political elements from capitalising on the case to prevent him from becoming prime minister.

Meanwhile, Senator Prapanth Koonmee, a legal expert, said that Pita appears to be following in the same footsteps as Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, former leader of the now defunct Future Forward party, the predecessor of the Move Forward party.

Thanathorn was stripped of his MP status by the Constitutional Court in 2019 for owning 675,000 shares in V-Luck Media, a media company, in violation of election law.

The senator said that Pita’s transfer of iTV shares to other heirs was in the hope that he would be able to convince the court that he did not own the shares, but merely held them on behalf of other heirs in his capacity as executor of his late father’s will, as he had claimed to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

He said Pita might have been advised by a legal expert to transfer the shares to save himself from potential disqualification, citing Article 1615 of the Commercial Code, which states, in essence, that disowning the inheritance will be retroactively effective to the death of his father 17 years ago.

The senator said, however, that there are other provisions that are related to the disowning of the shares which Pita’s legal expert might have missed, such as Article 1612, which states that the person who disowns an inheritance must state clearly their intention in writing to authorities concerned and he doubted that Pita had done that.

He also pointed out that, over the past 17 years, the shares were held in the name of Pita as the owner and registered shareholder in the records of the Stock Exchange of Thailand and there is no evidence that the shares were held in the name of the executor.

“The big question is whether the court will believe Pita’s version of events,” said Senator Prapanth.