Party Leader Calls for Uniform Prosecution in Election Fraud Case
Thai Nation Building Party leader Peeraphan Korthong called for uniform prosecution in an election fraud case, arguing that all parties involved in alleged tampering should face charges equally rather than selective enforcement, and that a
On September 16, Peeraphan Korthong, leader of the Thai Nation Building Party, commented on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of election tampering, stating that if facts and evidence show that individuals acted together in a conspiracy, prosecution should cover all parties with relevant involvement and should not selectively target specific individuals.
Korthong said that in cases involving a division of labor and shared intent, liability should be assessed by looking at the overall conduct of the entire group. He stressed that the Election Commission's key duty is to gather complete and credible facts, witnesses, and evidence before submitting the case to court for legal review.
"The Election Commission is not the final arbiter of who is guilty or innocent, but it has the duty to act within the legal authority granted to it. If it finds sufficient evidence to believe that improper or unfair conduct has occurred, it refers the matter to court for the judge to decide based on all evidence," Korthong said.
Korthong addressed observations about a witness who recanted earlier testimony, arguing that a single witness changing their statement should not be the main reason to drop or change the direction of a case if other witnesses and evidence remain available. He noted that the witness claimed to have been threatened but provided no indication of who threatened them or whether any actual threat occurred.
Korthong said that if one witness recants, investigators must examine where both the original and new statements came from and weigh all evidence fairly, rather than taking one person's testimony as reason to shift the entire case in any direction. Vague claims of being threatened without evidence of who made the threat cannot be accepted as genuine intimidation.
Korthong added that if later evidence shows the recantation resulted from inducement, pressure, or a deal to help someone avoid liability, relevant agencies should investigate whether other crimes occurred. The witness in question should also face charges for making false statements to officials.
"This matter should not be viewed solely through the lens of what one witness says, but must examine the entire body of evidence and allow the justice system to render judgment. If evidence exists, prosecution must proceed straightforwardly without selective enforcement and with equal standards applied to all parties," Korthong said.
