ECT refers 77 Senate selection fraud suspects to Supreme Court; Bhumjaithai politicians excluded

The Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) has decided to refer 77 individuals accused of involvement in the Senate selection collusion case, including only 26 sitting senators, to the Supreme Court. Notably, none of the accused politicians from the Bhumjathai Party were referred. Meanwhile, iLaw, which has been following the Senate selection process since 2024, will be releasing more information from the case file, including testimonies of other witnesses.

The ECT met on Monday (14 September) to decide whether to refer the Senate selection fraud case to the Supreme Court. According to the ECT’s resolution, only 77 individuals were referred to the Supreme Court. 

According to the investigation, the individuals, who were accused of electoral fraud, included 138 sitting senators, 50 candidates and individuals on the reserve list, 21 Bhumjaithai politicians, and 20 other individuals linked to Bhumjaithai politicians.

During its press conference, the ECT representatives clarified that a total number of the accused was actually 427, not 229, with 67 complainants. 77 individuals, who were referred to the Supreme Court, included 26 sitting senators, 36 candidates, and 15 others. 

The ECT revealed that there were a total of 7 charges in accordance with the 2018 Organic Act on the Acquisition of Senators that were brought against the accused. However, 2 charges against a politician in connection with electoral fraud were dropped. 

The ECT resolved that neither reasonable grounds nor evidence indicated that Bhumjaithai Party’s MPs and members of the executive committee were involved in the collusion as accused, despite phone call records and witnesses. According to the ECT, some witnesses were not credible and questionable, and their testimony was inconsistent.

The investigation in this case began last year, but the case reached a tipping point after  the opposition and the legal watchdog NGO iLaw, which has been following the Senate selection process and noticed abnormalities, began releasing evidence of vote rigging and collusion and alleging that high-ranking Bhumjaithai members, including Cabinet ministers, were involved.

In the past few months, Civil society organizations have insisted that the ECT must refer the case to court so that the evidence can be heard instead of just by the ECT, whose neutrality is questioned. iLaw has also said several times that it will release the information it has on those individuals if the ECT decides not to indict any one of the 229 accused.

The ECT’s legitimacy has been under scrutiny due to the connection between commissioners and the ruling party, it should not be making a decision and should simply send the case to court.

Election commissioners are appointed on the Senate’s approval and 4 out of the 7 sitting commissioners were approved by the incumbent Senate. 3 out of the 7 sitting commissioners were once bureaucrats under a Bhumjaithai minister. Some members of the nomination committee for election commissioners are also connected to Bhumjaithai-aligned politicians and senators.

Following the ECT’s press conference, the People's Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut revealed that the ECT’s decision not to take legal action against even a single Bhumjathai politician, despite solid evidence, was considered unlawful and against its own standards. 

The resolution not only allows the majority of those accused in the Senate collusion to escape prosecution but also perpetuates the problems surrounding the independent institutions under the 2017 Constitution, which has been truly unable to operate independently. 

He said that the party will take and support legal action against the ECT for wrongful exercise of power and ensure that the evidence concerning the suspects, who have not been indicted, is brought before the Court.

The party will also scrutinize the accused politicians through parliamentary mechanisms, such as censure debates, as well as a public campaign. 

Natthaphong reiterated that pushing for the constitutional amendment is the way to limit the Senate’s illegitimacy and to allow the public to scrutinize and remove those who hold a position in independent bodies under the Constitution.

Response from iLaw

iLaw held a press conference following the ECT’s announcement. Director Yingcheep Atchanont said that iLaw has been following the Senate selection process since 2024, even before the ECT announced how the selection would be conducted. It has campaigned for people to participate in the selection and has observed the selection process at every level. After the national level selection, Yingcheep said, iLaw noticed that something abnormal happened during the selection. He noted how over a thousand candidates were seen wearing the same outfits on voting day. Notes were found with numbers of candidates who would later be selected as senators, winning such a high vote count that not even the ECT thought possible.

Yingcheep said that, given the information, it can be concluded that there is a large conspiracy to ensure a chosen group of candidates were selected. He noted that at least 120 senators are part of this plot, and that they tend to vote in the same direction so often that it would not be possible to say they are independent. 

It was not easy to find evidence that such a conspiracy took place, he said, but the only people with a motif are large political parties with a network in several provinces. The evidence found pointed to the Bhumjaithai Party. Its MPs, former MPs, MP assistants, and politicians’ family members were accused of recruiting candidates and paying them, as well as gathering them in hotels and instructing them on how to vote.

Yingcheep said that the ECT’s decision not to prosecute political party executives is not surprising, given that even ECT chair Narong Klanwarin was appointed following approval from the incumbent Senate and given that the Senate’s affiliation and connections are well-known.

He speculated that it is likely that the 77 people whose case is referred to court are minor players in the game who made a mistake, such as by transferring money from their own accounts or from those of their spouses. As for the others, not being prosecuted does not mean they did nothing wrong, just that they did not slip up and leave behind a trail.

Yingcheep stressed that 26 senators being prosecuted meant that fraud was committed during the selection. He noted that information the ECT presented during its press conference is related to senator Surachart Wichaya Suwannaphrom from Nong Bua Lumphu, since it is the same pieces of information previously disclosed by People’s Party MP Parit Wacharasindhu about financial transaction Surachart made. 

Yingcheep noted that Surachart came 5th from 154 candidates and that he won the highest number of votes during inter-group voting. This means that a large number of candidates were involved beyond candidates from Nong Bua Lumphu who received money. He questioned how other candidates included in the same voting instruction note as Surachart can be uninvolved or unaware. Nevertheless, prosecuting some individuals means the ECT accepted that the Senate selection process was fraudulent.

Boonyanooch Mattoojak, an iLaw representative, said that the ECT had acted as if it were the court. It is required by law to refer a case to court if there is reasonable evidence of fraud, but the ECT chair said during the press conference that some witnesses were not credible or that other evidence were not found. She said that the ECT should have searched for additional evidence instead of judging a witness’ credibility and refusing to find other evidence. Making a verdict should be up to the Supreme Court, which is a more neutral organization than the ECT, whose commissioners were approved by the Senate.

Boonyanooch said that refusing to refer every suspect to court means the Supreme Court will not be able to find additional evidence and the public will never see whether those let off by the ECT were guilty.

Kanlayakorn Sunthornpruk, another iLaw representative, noted that Ekkarat Changlao, a witness mentioned by the ECT as not being credible, is a former Bhumjaithai MP involved with recruiting candidates. Other witnesses said they met Ekkarat during the Senate selection and that they were candidates in Ekkarat’s network. Phone call records between Ekkarat and Newin Chidchob were also found.

Kanlayakorn said iLaw will be releasing Ekkarat’s testimony to the public. Yingcheep added that iLaw considered Ekkarat a first tier witness because he was still a Bhumjaithai MP in 2024 and testified during the investigation that Bhumjaithai executives and several Cabinet ministers were involved with the Senate selection fraud, but the ECT chair said he dismissed Ekkarat’s testimony because Ekkarat has a prior conflict with the party executives.

Yingcheep said iLaw will be releasing more information from the case file, including testimonies of other witnesses.

Phatcha Chaimongkolsub, also an iLaw representative, said that it is necessary to rewrite the Constitution because it has become clear that the ECT, who came into office with approval of the Senate, uses its power to protect the Bhumjaithai-aligned senators. Bhumjaithai has also proposed a constitutional amendment bill that gives the Senate the power to select members of the drafting assembly and approve a new constitution. The only way out, she said, is to object to the drafting process proposed by Bhumjaithai and back a bill being proposed by the civil society calling for a Constitutional Drafting Assembly election.

The civil society is now in the process of collecting signatures for the bill. Eligible voters can back the bill at conforall.com.