Bangkok: The Constitutional Court has rejected a petition filed against 15 political and civil society parties concerning an alleged audio clip involving Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen and Thai Prime Minister Paethongtarn Shinawatra. The petition claimed the clip indicated a plan to infringe on Thailand's sovereignty, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
According to Thai News Agency, the petition was originally submitted by Mr. Winij Jinjai under Article 49 of the Constitution. It suggested that the media had released an audio recording of a conversation between Mr. Hun Sen and Ms. Paethongtarn, which allegedly hinted at plans to challenge Thailand's sovereignty. This led to a series of legal actions and demands involving various political figures and parties.
One of the actions included a petition to the Election Commission to consider dissolving the Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners, spearheaded by Mr. Sakon Karnkrasang. Additionally, a criminal complaint was filed by Mr. Somchai Sawaengkarn and others, while Mr. Ruangkrai Leekitwattana of the Palang Pracharath Party urged Ms. Paethongtarn to resign as Prime Minister.
The petition also involved multiple defendants, including executive members of the Palang Pracharath Party, the Thai Phakdee Party, and the Bhumjaithai Party, as well as a group of academics and professionals. The Registrar of Political Parties and the Election Commission were also named, in connection with alleged collusion in the selection of Senate members for 2024.
The petition argued that these actions violated the democratic regime under the King as Head of State, as outlined in Section 49 of the Constitution and related laws. However, upon review, the Attorney General found no evidence supporting claims of efforts to overthrow the government. Consequently, no further legal proceedings were initiated.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the allegations lacked clear evidence of any violation of the democratic regime. It emphasized that any potential offenses under the Criminal Code or other laws would require separate examination. The decision underscores the need for adherence to the legal standards and procedures defined in Section 49 of the Constitution.