LETTER | Thai govt should stop weaponising the courts against opponents

LETTER | The Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) expresses serious concerns over repeated attempts by the Thai government to silence lawmakers by politicising the courts.

The group points out that the Thai Constitutional Court’s ruling on the dissolution of the Move Forward Party over their proposal to amend the lèse-majesté law could have serious repercussions on the 44 members of Parliament, who supported a draft measure amending Section 112 of the Criminal Code during the previous parliamentary term in 2021.

They could face lifetime political bans if found guilty and the possible dissolution would lead to at least a 10-year political ban on the Move Forward Party’s executive members, which would inadvertently create a setback for the progressive and human rights agenda that the party has been advocating.

There are hints that the Aug 7, 2024, judgment may not favour the Move Forward Party as the National Election Commission and Constitutional Court have stated that the proposed amendment is an attempt to overthrow the democratic government with the king as head of state.

“In light of these circumstances, we urge the Thai judiciary to maintain its independence and carefully consider the consequences that its overreach into the prerogatives of the legislature may have on Thailand's political and economic stability, as well as its international reputation,” said APHR chair and member of the Indonesian House of Representatives Mercy Barends.

We see a clear pattern of targeted prosecution where these 44 MPs are also under investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

In the past 20 years, there have been four major cases of party dissolutions. A guilty verdict against the Move Forward Party would mark the fifth.

It is noteworthy that in 2020, the Future Forward Party, the predecessor to the Move Forward Party, became the fourth victim of what some consider a judicial coup.

“The Thai Parliament is at risk of losing its function as a check on power when parliamentarians are constantly at risk for advocating reforms through their mandates,” said APHR co-chair and former Malaysian MP Charles Santiago.

APHR therefore calls upon those exercising de facto power in Thailand to refrain from politicising the courts as an instrument to silence parliamentarians on charges that contravene universal democratic principles, for their political longevity and motivation.

In sharp contrast, APHR encourages the Constitutional Court to consult the Venice Commission's guidelines on the prohibition and dissolution of political parties.

“The dissolution of a political party should only be considered as the last resort in extreme cases and must be implemented with utmost care, caution, and proportionality. The fact alone that a party advocates a peaceful change should not be sufficient for its dissolution,” said Arlene D Brosas, Philippine member of Parliament and board member of APHR.

“We call on the Thai Constitutional Court to follow internationally recognised principles in deliberating their decision,” added Brosas.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.