Thai Raksa Chart’s defence claims it was Princess’s wish to be its PM candidate
The pro-Thaksin Thai Raksa Chart party submitted its written defence to the Constitutional Court today against the Election Commission’s ruling that the party committed hostile acts against democracy under the constitutional monarchy by nominating Princess Ubolratana as its prime ministerial candidate.
Mr. Surachai Chinchai, a lawyer representing the Thai Raksa Chart party, told the media that the party had challenged the EC’s ruling on three bases.
First, the party says that it acted in good faith without ulterior motive in its nomination of their prime ministerial candidate and with the consent of the Princess.
Second, those who are accused of committing acts hostile to democracy should only be enemies of the state, those who want to replace democracy with Communism or those who commit acts of sedition in accordance with Section 113 of the Criminal Code.
Third, the party challenged the EC’s dissolution ruling in the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the EC had bypassed legal procedures by not holding an enquiry and not allowing the party to present a defence.
In addition to the written defence, the lawyer said that the party submitted a list of 19 witnesses, including 14 executive committee members and five independent witnesses, to the court for consideration.
In its written defence, the Thai Raksa Chart party claimed it had nominated The Princess in good faith and within the scope of the Constitution, law and the Royal Command issued in 1972 announcing that the Princess had relinquished her Royal titles. The party also claimed that there was no law that bars the Princess from holding a political post.
However, the morning following the Royal Command implying that the party’s nomination of the Princess was highly inappropriate, the party withdrew the nomination.
Additionally, the defence states that the EC had no right to refer to the King’s Royal Command when accusing the party of allegedly breaching Section 92 of the Constitution and in demanding the Constitutional Court to revoke the right to contest the election of all the executive committee members.