The Democrat Party resolved to join the "People's Party" in signing to establish an independent investigative committee to examine the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) over its dismissal of the case against Saksayam. Additionally, they will submit a direct request to the NACC to review the disgraceful resolution after discovering new evidence that a directive letter must be approved by a minister first.
At 14:00 on 28 Apr 2026 GMT+7, the Democrat Party held its weekly parliamentary meeting, chaired by party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, with all MPs attending. Later, at 16:20, Satit Wongnongtoey, party-list MP and deputy party leader, disclosed that the meeting discussed the case where the NACC commissioners dismissed the case against former Minister of Transport Saksayam Chidchob concerning stock concealment and conflicts of interest. The party's legal team had uncovered new issues.
New issues were also identified.
Moreover, the meeting resolved on two points: 1. It found the NACC commissioners' decision suspicious and noted new evidence, as the allegations against the NACC's handling of Saksayam's case conflicted with the Constitutional Court's ruling. Details indicated attempts to deliberately overlook some issues and selectively focus on points benefiting the accused. To clarify these matters, the resolution was for Democrat MPs to co-sign with the People's Party under Article 236 of the Constitution to petition the parliamentary speaker to request the Supreme Court to establish an independent investigative committee to examine the NACC commissioners.
The Democrat Party's legal team pointed out that it may have been a deliberate intent by the NACC commissioners to selectively overlook and focus only on points favorable to the accused. Initially, the party will form a drafting team, including myself and Rames Rattanachaweng from the legal team, to prepare the petition jointly with the People's Party. Two additional issues previously unaddressed include new evidence: 1. Evidence released by some news agencies showing that during Saksayam's tenure as Minister of Transport, a directive was issued stipulating that any procurement bidding under his supervision must be reported to the minister beforehand. This could constitute interference or a conflict of interest, which the NACC ruled out based on the absence of ministerial orders, but this directive letter is considered new evidence.
Submitting to the NACC for review.
The second overlooked point concerns conflict of interest: a company awarded contracts within the ministry Saksayam oversaw. The Constitutional Court clearly ruled that while the company had nominee shareholders, the true owner was still Saksayam. Thus, with Saksayam as the actual owner, the company receiving contracts from the ministry he supervised represents a clear conflict of interest. The NACC commissioners failed to clarify this and deliberately ignored the Constitutional Court's ruling. Therefore, the Democrat Party will submit these two issues to the NACC, presenting new evidence to prompt a review of the existing decision,” Satit said.
Supporting amendment of Article 236.
Satit added that there are concerns that submitting a petition under Article 236 to the parliamentary speaker—who has discretionary power per the Constitution—might impact the balance of power between Parliament and independent agencies. The Democrat Party resolved to support amending this article so that future oversight of independent bodies would not depend on the speaker's discretion. Many fear that if the speaker is biased or aligned with any side, they could delay such matters, as has occurred in the past.
When asked whether the NACC's ruling could be seen as whitewashing Saksayam, Satit said this is a societal concern. The Democrat Party, committed to honest politics, considers it their duty to clarify the matter. Since there are legal and constitutional channels available, they will proceed accordingly.