"Sonthiya" is preparing to re-petition the Supreme Court to order 10 People’s Party MPs to suspend their duties until the case is fully resolved, stating he accepts the ruling but insists on exercising his rights as the complainant.
On 24 April 2026, political activist Mr. Sonthiya Sawasdee told reporters that after the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders accepted the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s ethics case against 44 former Move Forward Party MPs who signed to amend Section 112, 10 People’s Party MPs were allowed to continue their duties. He recalled that in 2018, he filed a complaint to prevent the Registrar of Political Parties from registering the Future Forward Party, involving Mr. Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, Ms. Panika Wanich, and Mr. Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. Mr. Piyabutr accused him of imagining things regarding Mr. Piyabutr’s previous involvement with the Nitirat group and their intention to amend Section 112. Sonthiya submitted the complaint to the Election Commission to reject the Future Forward Party’s registration.
Regarding the second issue involving 44 MPs, Sonthiya was one of two people who filed for investigation into serious ethical violations by members of parliament and associates of the Future Forward Party, which later became the People’s Party. He believes the misconduct has been ongoing in stages continuously until today. Upon learning that the Supreme Court ruled that 10 MPs of the People’s Party could continue their duties, he exercised his right as the complainant to oppose this decision and requested that all 10 MPs suspend their duties until the case is fully resolved.
Next week, he plans to prepare all necessary documents to submit to the Supreme Court judges for reconsideration, arguing that the 44 MPs’ repeated misconduct—some occurring two to three times—combined with a clear Constitutional Court ruling prohibiting groups from acts that erode or undermine the system, justify the suspension. While he does not agree with the current ruling, he accepts the Supreme Court’s judgment but will exercise his rights as the complainant in this matter. He leaves the final decision to the court’s discretion.