Thirayut” brought 5,080 pages of documents to file a complaint with the Constitutional Court in 6 cases, indicating that “Thaksin-Pheu Thai” have behavior of overthrowing the government, requesting an order to stop the action.
Mr. Thirayuth Suwannakasorn brought 5,080 pages of documents, both petitions and evidence, to submit to the Constitutional Court as a citizen, to request a ruling ordering Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the first defendant, and the Pheu Thai Party, the second defendant, to cease their actions that are the exercise of rights and freedoms that will lead to the overthrow of the democratic regime with the King as head of state, according to Article 49 of the Constitution, after having previously submitted to the Attorney General, but no action was taken and it was completed at all times. Therefore, the law allows them to submit a petition to the Constitutional Court.
Mr. Thirayut said that he has filed a complaint in 6 cases:
Case 1: Because Mr. Thaksin received a royal pardon, his sentence was
reduced to 1 year. It was found that Mr. Thaksin used the Pheu Thai Party as a tool to control the administration of the country, ordering the government through the Ministry of Justice to benefit him by allowing him to stay on the 14th floor of the Police General Hospital so that he would not have to serve a single day in prison.
Case 2: Mr. Thaksin has a behavior of colluding with Samdech Hun Sen, the political leader of Cambodia, which has a system of government where the political party has power over the monarchy, in which Mr. Thaksin has the characteristics of being the owner, possessor, dominater and the one who orders, using the Pheu Thai Party as a tool to control the administration of the country, ordering the government to benefit Samdech Hun, such as giving Cambodia sovereignty over Thailand by negotiating the area that Cambodia claims is an overlapping maritime area (MOU to share the benefits of natural gas and underwater resources in the maritime sovereignty of Thailand with Cambodia.
Case 3.
Mr. Thaksin ordered the Pheu Thai Party to cooperate for the constitution with the Prachachon Party, which is a party founded by a political group or the original Move Forward Party, which was ruled by the Constitutional Court 3/2567 that there was an act of overthrowing the democratic regime with the King as head of state, which Mr. Thaksin acted as the owner, possessor, dominater and ordered the Pheu Thai Party to have a constitution in order to benefit the first defendant and his group.
Case 4. Mr. Thaksin acted as a vassal, possessor, possessor, and a person who gave things to the Pheu Thai Party in negotiations with leaders of other political parties that joined the government of Mr. Settha Thavisin, former Prime Minister, to discuss proposing a person who is suitable to be the new Prime Minister. The incident occurred on August 14, 2023 at Mr. Thaksin’s private residence (Baan Chan Song La).
Case 5: Mr. Thaksin has the behavior of being the owner, possessor, dominator, and the one who ordered the Pheu
Thai Party to pass a resolution to expel the Palang Pracharath Party from the coalition government.
Case 6. Mr. Thaksin has the behavior of being the owner, possessor, dominater and the one who orders the Pheu Thai Party, which is the core party of the government, to implement the policies that he expressed his vision on August 22, 2024 into the policies of the Cabinet that were announced to the State Council on September 12, 2014.
Therefore, we ask the Constitutional Court to consider and rule that in all 6 cases, Mr. Thaksin and the Pheu Thai Party have acted in a way that undermines and undermines the honor of the monarchy, causing the monarchy to lose its status above politics or maintain political neutrality, which is an erosion of the monarchy, causing it to deteriorate, deteriorate, or become weaker. There are also acts that undermine and undermine the political party system, which is an important political institution of the regime with the King as Head of State, causing it to deteriorate, deteriora
te, or become weaker. Such acts are acts that may eventually lead to the overthrow of the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, in order to prevent serious damage that may occur to the monarchy, which is the main institution of the country, and the political party institution that is important to the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, causing it to become extremely deteriorated, deteriorated, or weaker. Such acts are acts that may lead to the overthrow of the democratic regime with the King as Head of State.
Ready to request the Constitutional Court to rule and order according to Section 49, paragraph two of the Constitution as follows:
Order Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the first defendant, to stop using the Pheu Thai Party, the second defendant, as a tool to carry out actions that undermine and destroy the honor of the monarchy.
Let Mr. Thaksin stop acting as the owner, possessor, possessor and commander
of the Pheu Thai Party’s operations.
Let Mr. Thaksin stop using the Pheu Thai
Party as a tool to control the administration of the country, order the government to act according to Mr. Thaksin’s wishes, and stop using the Pheu Thai Party as a tool to gain power to govern the country by methods not provided for in this constitution.
Let the Pheu Thai Party stop allowing Thaksin to use it as a tool to carry out actions that undermine and destroy the honor of the monarchy.
Let the Pheu Thai Party stop allowing Mr. Thaksin to use it as a tool to act as the owner, possessor, dominater and commander of the Pheu Thai Party’s operations.
Let the Pheu Thai Party stop allowing Thaksin to use it as a tool to control the administration of the country and order the government to act as it wishes.
Let the Pheu Thai Party stop allowing Mr. Thaksin to use it as a tool to gain power to govern the country by the methods stipulated in this constitution.
When asked if this petition to the Constitutional Court was expected to result in the dissolution of the Move Forward Party, Mr. Thirayut said that
at this stage, we expect the Constitution to order first. As for whether he will kindly investigate and see any reason, it is the court’s discretionary power, which cannot be encroached upon.
When asked if he had consulted on legal issues with Mr. Paiboon Nititawan, secretary-general of the Palang Pracharath Party, because Mr. Paiboon was the one who came out to state that he would hold a press conference and send a press release detailing the case to reporters, Mr. Thirayut said that following the ruling of Mr. Settha Thavisin, the former prime minister, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the actions of the defendant were clearly as the wise or public knew. After reading the ruling, the first thing to consider is whether what he thought was as he thought or predicted alone. Therefore, it is necessary to seek advice from someone with knowledge, experience, qualifications, and appropriate age. He only saw Mr. Paiboon because he was one of the people he met and talked to, so he called to ask about certai
n issues.
When asked if he had consulted with other lawyers besides Mr. Paiboon, Mr. Thirayut said that he would not disclose any other lawyers.
As for the evidence regarding Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister, while he was being treated on the 14th floor of the Police General Hospital, were there any pictures or clips that were submitted as evidence? Mr. Thirayut said that he would respectfully present witnesses, who are more important than audio clips. Because whether it is a clip, a picture or a video, Mr. Paiboon expressed his opinion that if those clips were released without permission from the relevant parties, it would be illegal. He did not want any illegal acts to occur.
When asked if the witness was Pol Gen Sereepisuth Temiyaves, who revealed that he had visited Thaksin at the hospital, Mr Thirayut said that he could not overstep the court because in one context the court had already seen that Pol Gen Sereepisuth had come out to act in his own way. However, what he used was the rep
ort of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which contained witnesses with details and other documents that were already secure according to the government system.
When asked about the witnesses that the Human Rights Committee referred to, when the petition was filed with the court, did the Constitutional Court have the right to call those witnesses for questioning? Mr. Thirayut said that the investigation system of the Constitutional Court is more special than the system of the Court of Justice in one way, which is that it has the direct power to see fit to call for documentary evidence, material evidence, and video evidence from anyone as it sees fit, with the Human Rights Committee and the news content that appears depending on how it uses its discretion. He has brought witnesses to the attention of the petitioners, but his names are still being withheld at the petition stage, and they will be revealed later. He has also targeted 3-4 witnesses, but he has not yet contacted anyone who will come to
be witnesses because he wants them to be innocent witnesses who he would like the court to kindly call. Contacting them in advance will cause impurity.
When asked if the court would use its power to summon witnesses to provide information, Mr. Thirayut said that it would be up to their discretion.
In this case, will the end result be the dissolution of the party? Mr. Thirayut said that he could not know. He just wished that some of the contexts that are happening now affect the two main institutions, so he wished that it would stop first.
When asked about evidence in the form of a clip or evidence of going to the Chan Song La house, which Mr. Paiboon had previously spoken about, whether there was evidence or not, Mr. Thirayut said that he did not know about this matter.
When asked if this meant that there were many parties working together to file separate complaints, Mr. Thirayut said no, he did not know about the others, but he was sitting and doing it alone.
As for the question of whether there is any
one behind Mr. Thirayut, Mr. Thirayut confirmed that there is none because he is not a member of any political party. His work is done quietly by himself, and it started when he went to report on a television channel. There was a question about whether the petitions submitted were too fussy, and that the petitions were filed one by one. He replied that each petitioner filed a petition at the time of the current incident. They filed the petitions one to two days later, and there was only one issue to file, so he saw it as a fussy matter. However, if you look at it as a jigsaw puzzle and put it together, you will see the whole picture.
When asked if there was an order to submit a petition, Mr. Thirayut confirmed that there was none because he had submitted it before there was any news. He had submitted it to the prosecutor and did not wish for much. It was just a signal.
As for whether it was a job for General Prawit, Mr. Thirayut said, ‘I have never met him in person and have never even talked to him. I have
never seen his face, so I have not had the opportunity. We may be just small people.’ But he told Mr. Paiboon about the jigsaw puzzles that he saw, especially from seeing the dissolution of the Thai Rak Tham and Move Forward parties, which Mr. Paiboon also thought was possible.
Meanwhile, Mr. Thirayut said that it took about 2-3 months to collect the information.
Source: Thai News Agency