In Chiang Mai, protesters angrily threw blue paint bags at the provincial Election Commission (EC) sign after the EC decided not to prosecute politicians involved in the Senate vote-rigging case. They criticized the prosecution of only lesser figures to protect more influential ones and announced plans to escalate the demonstrations.
This evening (14 Sep 2026) in front of the Chiang Mai provincial EC office, northern social democracy activists, allied networks, and local residents closely followed the EC’s press conference announcing the decision on the Senate vote-rigging case.
After learning the EC’s decision, most protesters expressed dissatisfaction because only a portion of the 229 people involved in the Senate vote-rigging case were prosecuted, and no party executive committee members or politicians involved were indicted, despite iLaw previously revealing the connections.
The protest network then held a symbolic act by painting blue on their faces, placing 229 coffee cups on the sidewalk to represent those implicated, and throwing blue paint-filled plastic bags at the Chiang Mai EC office sign to express frustration. Their leaders announced plans to escalate the protests to pressure the EC further.
Natchaporn Nammuang from the Constitution Campaign Network said not to be misled by the EC’s statement that 77 of the 229 people were prosecuted at the Supreme Court, because in reality only 26 were actually prosecuted. The key figures are that only 26 senators were charged, and none of the 21 party executive members faced prosecution.
When journalists asked the EC why it did not file charges against the party executives at the Supreme Court, the EC explained it was due to witness 16/26, believed to be former Bhumjaithai MP Ekkarat Changlao. After losing political rights and leaving the party, he exposed vote-rigging information but reversed his testimony just three days before the EC’s decision. The EC accepted this reversal, which appeared too coincidental, despite previously trusting the testimony. The EC’s panel dismissed the entire room’s opinion and ultimately ruled that party executives were not guilty and disbelieved Ekkarat’s statements.
Journalists also inquired why financial trail evidence and phone records were not considered by the EC. The EC responded that they had to verify if the documents were legally valid. A critical question remains: after two years, why did the EC only then consider the legality of these documents and not include them in the case file earlier? This suggests the EC admitted from the start that their case preparation was weak. Today’s EC statement confirmed the investigation was not robust and failed to hold anyone accountable. This aligns with expectations that only minor figures were prosecuted to protect more influential ones. The statement was disappointing but not surprising due to its poor quality.