Nattapong led opposition members and some senators to submit a petition to the Parliament Speaker, requesting that the Supreme Court establish a committee to investigate the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for misconduct in dismissing the stock concealment case against Saksayam. The petition details four allegations supported by evidence.
On 5 June 2026 at the Parliament building, Mr. Nattapong Rueangpanyawut, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and head of the Prachachon Party, along with representatives from opposition parties and some senators, held a press conference to announce the submission of a petition to the Parliament Speaker under Article 236 of the Constitution. They requested that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court to establish an investigative committee into the NACC's alleged misconduct in dismissing the complaint against Saksayam Chidchob regarding stock concealment.
Mr. Nattapong stated that over the past month, they had carefully prepared the petition to be as thorough as possible. The petition includes public information and recorded statements from NACC representatives made at opposition whip meetings, alongside all available evidence. The petition presents four main allegations:
1) The NACC conducted the investigation with procedural flaws and unlawfully. It failed to perform an in-depth asset and liability examination before dismissing the complaint related to the asset declaration, despite regulations requiring such scrutiny when there is suspicion of asset transfer, concealment, or proxy holding. Additionally, the NACC did not conduct a full inquiry into the criminal charges before dismissal, including failing to summon the complainant, Mr. Pakornwut Udomphipatsakul, or investigate possible disguised legal acts or financial trails as previously examined by the Constitutional Court.
2) The NACC clearly erred in its discretionary judgment by concluding that Mr. Saksayam had no intent to falsify his asset declaration, a finding inconsistent with facts and evidence presented during the Constitutional Court proceedings. Furthermore, the NACC neglected to determine whether Mr. Saksayam remained a shareholder in Buri Charoen Construction Partnership Limited.
3) The NACC concealed its investigative process by ignoring and failing to respond to requests from the complainant, Mr. Pakornwut, for access to documents related to the investigation, such as fact-finding reports, Saksayam’s statements, and official opinions from NACC officers. Moreover, the NACC delayed and neglected to disclose investigation results, announcing the dismissal of the asset complaint in September 2025 and the criminal case dismissal in February 2026 only publicly in April 2026, without notifying the complainant directly.
4) The NACC neglected to investigate and rule on other relevant charges appearing in the complaint or case facts, such as conflict of interest offenses under Section 126 of the NACC Act.
Mr. Nattapong added that after collecting signatures from parliament members under Article 236, it is the Parliament Speaker’s duty to review the petition and evidence to determine if there is reasonable suspicion. They believe the evidence presented provides sufficient grounds, and the Parliament Speaker should promptly forward the matter to the Supreme Court President to form an independent investigative committee.
When asked what actions would follow if the Parliament Speaker dismisses the petition, Mr. Nattapong said the evidence should be undeniable and constitutes reasonable suspicion warranting referral to the Supreme Court. He also mentioned other legal avenues, which he declined to detail, allowing any state power user—including the Parliament Speaker—who abuses authority to be subject to investigation.
If the Parliament Speaker chooses to dismiss the petition, it would not only oppose public opinion but might also constitute an improper exercise of discretion. They expect the Parliament Speaker, independent organizations, and parliamentary representatives to perform their duties honestly. The country’s current failure stems from many state officials abusing legal authority to destroy opponents and protect allies. Everyone knows which party the Parliament Speaker comes from, so society should judge whether this exercise of discretion is appropriate.
Meanwhile, Mr. Sathit Wongnongtoey stated that the Democrat Party stands for honest politics. The Saksayam case has several suspicious irregularities. Therefore, they joined the Prachachon Party, Seri Ruam Thai Party, Thai Pakdee Party, and some senators in signing and submitting the petition to the Parliament Speaker today.
However, regarding the NACC’s prior public announcement, the Democrat Party believes the NACC deliberately avoided ruling on issues already settled by the Constitutional Court’s factual and legal findings, specifically the conflict of interest. The Democrat Party thus filed an additional petition last week requesting the NACC to begin investigating and prosecuting Mr. Saksayam for conflict of interest. The facts show that a company ruled by the court to belong to Mr. Saksayam received contracts from the Ministry of Transport, overseen by Mr. Saksayam. This clear conflict of interest was deliberately ignored by the NACC. The Democrat Party expects prompt action and will continue to monitor and update the public regularly.