Bangkok: The Election Commission Chairman has reaffirmed that the summoning of senators for clarification aligns with legal procedures. This action follows the emergence of evidence that could prompt swift legal proceedings, with the court overseeing the decision-making process.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Ittiporn Boonprakong, the Chairman of the Election Commission, addressed the situation involving the summons issued to senators accused of collusive activities in the selection process. This summoning is based on documented charges, executed under the authority of the EC's special investigation and inquiry committee, led by Pol. Lt. Col. Chanin Noi Lek, Deputy Secretary-General of the EC. The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has been enlisted to assist in fact-finding.
Upon reviewing preliminary evidence, it was determined that charges could indeed be filed, leading to the issuance of an appointment letter. This letter set a schedule for 53 individuals to acknowledge the charges, allowing them an opportunity to clarify and present evidence. Notifications for clarifications can be delivered through mail, personal service by the committee, or by posting a summons at the senator's residence if they cannot be located. Senators are required to present their clarifications to the 26th Investigation and Inquiry Committee at the EC office.
Mr. Itthiporn outlined that the investigation and inquiry committee has a 90-day timeframe for consideration, which can be extended if multiple individuals are involved. Post-clarification, findings will be compiled and submitted to the EC Secretary-General, who has an additional 60 days for review. The matter will then proceed to the EC meeting, undergo review by the Sub-committee for Adjudication and Screening, and ultimately, the EC will render a decision. Should the evidence be deemed insufficient for further investigation, the case will be closed. However, if guilt is established, the matter will be forwarded to the Supreme Court, Election Division, initiating the court process. If accepted, the senator in question must cease their duties.
Regarding the one-year timeframe for petition resolution, Mr. Itthiphon stated that this period is intended to ensure justice but allows for flexibility. Delays, if any, must be justified. The potential need to elect new senators will depend on the number of positions vacated and further clarification.
On the possibility of summoning additional senators, Mr. Itthiporn noted that any action depends on the evidence reviewed by the 26th committee. Releasing information prematurely is deemed inappropriate.
In response to inquiries about whether the summons indicated definitive guilt, Mr. Itthiporn clarified that no immediate guilt is suggested. Circumstantial evidence indicates possible violations, but final judgments rest with the subcommittee and the EC. The decision-making process cannot be altered post-submission, although opinions on the sufficiency of information can be expressed to ensure fairness.
Addressing why the DSI was expedited in action compared to the EC, Mr. Itthiporn explained that the DSI possessed more comprehensive evidence in some cases, prompting EC's request for assistance. Swift action was facilitated by the combination of existing evidence and DSI collaboration. To date, approximately 577 senator petitions have been managed, with over 300 completed.
Mr. Itthiphon affirmed that the current summoning of senators for clarification is managed by the 26th Investigation and Inquiry Committee.