Prit, a Prachachon Party MP, has accepted evidence from Lawyer Aun who has been closely following the Sak Siam case. He boasts that over 140 MPs and senators support submitting a petition by May to proceed under Section 236 to impeach the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).
At 09:30 on 12 May 2026 at the Parliament, Mr. Prit Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP for the Prachachon Party, received a petition from Mr. Phattharaphong Suphakorn, known as Lawyer Aun, a political activist. The evidence supports the opposition party's petition to the Supreme Court to appoint an independent committee to investigate the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) after it dismissed the case against former Transport Minister Sak Siam Chidchob. The case concerns concealment of assets and liabilities by hiding stocks, which amounts to misconduct in office. Mr. Prit said the opposition is drafting the petition with plans to complete it by May. More than 140 parliamentarians have pledged to sign: 119 MPs from Prachachon Party, 21 from the Democrat Party, one from the Seri Ruam Thai Party, one from the Thai Pakdee Party, and about 10 senators. The petition awaits further supporting information, including details of all NACC procedures in the Sak Siam case.
This also includes any clarifications from Sak Siam, if available. Mr. Pakornwut Udompiphatsakul, a party-list MP from Prachachon Party who previously filed a complaint with the NACC, is involved.
.
Mr. Prit added that the petition focuses on three key issues: 1. The facts considered by the Constitutional Court regarding the financial transactions in Sak Siam's case, which the NACC apparently did not review, and lack of conclusions about false asset and liability declarations or hidden stocks that led to Sak Siam's removal from ministerial office. 2. The NACC's failure to investigate all points and allegations raised in complaints filed with it. 3. The NACC's procedural handling from receiving complaints to conducting investigations. It was found that Mr. Pakornwut, as complainant, was never contacted by the NACC and only learned through the media that the complaint was dismissed. Mr. Prit demanded the NACC clarify its investigative process since it is suspected the NACC dismissed the complaint before conducting a proper investigation. According to the Organic Act on the NACC, Section 51, important cases affecting broad interests or involving political office holders require the NACC to appoint an inquiry committee. However, there is no indication that the NACC held such inquiries or appointed committees in this case. The NACC’s statement also did not mention any investigation. It is suspected the NACC used Section 49 to dismiss the allegations at a preliminary stage. According to Section 49, if the NACC decides not to proceed after preliminary review, it must notify the complainant, but Mr. Pakornwut never received such notice. This is a suspicious matter the NACC must clarify to the public.
When asked whether these suspicious points would lead to requesting the NACC to reconsider the Sak Siam case, Mr. Prit said it is the NACC's authority to act, but this does not erase the wrongdoing nor halt the process under Section 236.
Meanwhile, Mr. Phattharaphong said as a member of civil society, he will gather 20,000 public signatures to support legal action against the NACC for dismissing the complaint against Sak Siam. Preparations are underway, and he hopes Mr. Sophon Sarum, Speaker of the House, will not delay this matter.