Senator Gop Files Complaint Against Election Commission Minority
Senator Gop Ajanakit filed a complaint with the National Anti‑Corruption Commission against two minority Election Commissioners over a Senate collusion case, accusing critics of bias and warning that remarks like “quiet coup” could violate sedition law. He urged election officials to act impartially and within the Constitution, while condemning opposition lawmakers and the iLaw group for lacking maturity and legal grounding. He added that unfounded allegations could lead to charges under Section 116 of the Criminal Code.
On October 6, 2026, at the Parliament building, Police Colonel Gop Ajanakit, a Senator, explained that he had submitted a complaint to the National Anti‑Corruption Commission asking it to investigate the performance of the Election Commission according to the law, without pre‑judging guilt. He said the complaint seeks protection of the rights of the accused, witnesses and related persons under the presumption of innocence, and stressed that once the matter reaches the NACC it is the commission’s duty to act; he cannot disclose who or how the complaint was filed, nor whether it concerns the two minority Election Commissioners, because the EC is an independent agency that falls within the NACC’s jurisdiction. He added that all actions must comply with the law, that the EC chairman and other commissioners must respect the law, act independently and without bias, and questioned whether their media statements show bias or conflict with the Constitution. Although they have the right to speak to the press, they must not violate others’ rights; the minority must accept the majority’s decision and the majority must respect the minority, reflecting the simple rule that votes are decided by majority. He argued that the Royal Institute exists to educate the public, not to declare which side is right or wrong, and criticised former judges for overstepping by calling the situation a “quiet coup,” a term he said offended him because it is not a democratic principle. He urged those who speak publicly to remember their legal ethics and not to treat others as inherently good or bad, noting that a person’s standing depends on their actions. When asked whether he would also file an ethics complaint against Members of Parliament who revealed information about the alleged Senate vote‑buying scheme, he said MPs likely know they are bound by the same ethical standards, but some lack maturity, having studied abroad and tried to apply foreign law to Thailand, which does not work. He dismissed claims that the matter is still under consideration and therefore secret, pointing out that he knows what “under consideration” means and that the EC has issued only a resolution, not a ruling, so allegations that consideration is finished are unfounded. He stressed that people need reason, lawyers need legal ethics, and the media must observe media ethics. Finally, he noted that Senators have served for two years without engaging in disputes, have accepted inspections and never blamed anyone, and that if criticism is warranted it should be voiced in Parliament, not outside where it could confuse the public.
