Akkaradej criticized the People's Party's military court bill for opening channels to interfere with the justice process. He noted that including outsiders in the judicial committee conflicts with court principles and risks undermining judicial independence.
Akkaradej Wongpitakroj, MP for Ratchaburi from the Bhumjaithai Party, spoke during the debate on the military court act bills—the Cabinet's version and the one proposed by MPs Ekkarat Udom-amnuay and Lt. Kittipong Piyawanno of the People's Party. He said he supports the Cabinet's bill but disagrees with the opposition's version because it contains principles that could affect the independence of the military court.
Akkaradej said the Cabinet's bill, proposed by the Ministry of Defense, improves citizens' rights and freedoms. For example, it allows victims to file cases directly with the military court and grants appeal rights during the martial law proclamation. Several parliament members have already debated in favor of this bill.
However, regarding the opposition's bill, which argues that the original law dating back to 1955 includes many provisions unsuitable for current conditions, Akkaradej said he checked and found that the law has been continuously amended, with the latest revision in 2015—the eighth amendment—so it is not a law that has never been updated as claimed.
Akkaradej also raised concerns about changes to the military judiciary committee's composition, where the bill adds representatives from the Supreme Administrative Court, the Judicial Office, the Administrative Court Office, and the Attorney General's Office. He sees this as bringing outsiders into the military court, whereas each justice system organization should have separate authority and not interfere with one another. Moreover, including the Attorney General in this committee could undermine the principle of separation of roles within the justice process—the investigative stage, prosecution, and judiciary.
“We have never seen individuals from other courts serve on the judicial committees of the Judicial Office or Administrative Court because each court has its own jurisdiction. Yet, this bill allows outsiders to sit on the military judiciary committee,” Akkaradej said.
He also mentioned the proposal to grant the military judiciary committee authority to receive complaints if unfairness is perceived in case proceedings, and to establish investigative subcommittees to examine facts. He warned this could become a channel for interfering with military court proceedings. Even the legislature cannot interfere with court proceedings because judicial independence must be protected. Yet, this bill opens the door for the committee to inspect or investigate trial processes, risking judicial independence.
Akkaradej concluded that while he agrees with some principles, such as increasing victims’ rights and bail rights, the problematic details in the bill could affect the justice process. Therefore, he cannot support the opposition's bill and will only back the Cabinet's bill to proceed to the next stage of consideration.