Court Sets Witness Timeline for 44 Move Forward MPs Ethics Case

The Supreme Court examined evidence in the case against 44 former Move Forward Party lawmakers accused of serious ethical violations related to their signatures on an amendment to Article 112 of the Criminal Code. NACC Secretary-General Surapong Inthatawon attended the August 4, 2025 hearing at the Supreme Court on Ratchadamnoen Road. Both parties acknowledged the preliminary evidence presented, and the court approved a schedule for prosecution witnesses in 4 sessions totaling 9 witnesses, with the first session on August 25, 2025. The defense will present 60 witnesses, with hearings beginning November 3, 2025, and concluding May 18, 2026, before the court delivers its verdict.

Nithi Laiadee, counsel for the defendants, explained the defense strategy and timeline in an interview. The legal team had initially submitted over 80 witness names but reduced the number due to redundancy and at the court's direction. The 60 approved witnesses are divided into three main groups: 1) the 44 former lawmakers themselves, including expected key figures like former Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat and former MP Nattapon Rueangpanya, though their exact schedules require further coordination; 2) academics specializing in law, political science, and public administration to provide broader expert perspectives beyond purely legal arguments; and 3) fact witnesses who can testify about lawmakers' conduct during the relevant period.

When asked whether prominent legal scholars such as former Constitution drafters would testify, Nithi said the team is still coordinating and would reserve names pending further updates, as witness schedules may shift for convenience. Regarding the core legal issue, Nithi stated the main defense argument is that the defendants' actions did not violate ethical standards. He expects the defense witness phase to conclude by May next year, and when asked if the timeline is too long, he responded that given the number of witnesses and case complexity, the schedule is appropriate—neither rushed nor unnecessarily delayed. Nithi emphasized that the large number of witnesses clearly demonstrates this is not a delay tactic, noting that the court approved the full scope because it recognizes the defendants deserve a complete defense while the team must present facts, opinions, and evidence comprehensively.