Lawmakers Challenge Election Commission Over Selective Case Dismissal

On September 16, 2569, during a parliamentary session to receive the Election Commission's work report for fiscal years 2567 and 2568, Panida Mongkolswat, a representative from Samut Prakan of the Thai People's Party, expressed disappointment with the commission's September 14 decision to dismiss significant allegations involving politicians and Thai Proud Party executives. She questioned the commission's investigation and inquiry procedures, emphasizing that while responsibility for determining guilt rests with the Supreme Court, not the commission or lawmakers, the systematic pattern of evidence—coordinated voting sequences across all 20 candidate groups, consistent ballot numbers, and synchronized movements across provinces—suggested organized manipulation rather than coincidence.

Panida highlighted the suspicious concentration of the alleged scheme in small provinces with Thai Proud Party representatives, indicating a coordinated network. She expressed particular concern that when the commission's majority considered allegations involving senior government officials and Thai Proud Party figures, credibility of witness Ekkaraj Changhlao, a former Khon Kaen representative of Thai Proud Party, became the pivotal issue. The commission's majority cited his retracted testimony as grounds for dismissal, while the minority disagreed, arguing the overall evidence remained substantial.

Panida criticized the commission for selectively using Ekkaraj's recantation to dismiss the entire investigation, claiming the commission discarded crucial supporting details—financial records, phone calls, quota requests, and corroborating witnesses—based on a single retraction. She challenged what standard the commission was applying and demanded transparency regarding the majority vote to dismiss charges against Thai Proud Party members.