A group of reserve senators teamed up with lawyer Aun from Buriram, bringing LINE chat evidence and financial trail documents to pressure the Election Commission (EC) to submit the case of vote-rigging involving 229 senators directly to the Supreme Court.
On 5 June 2026, a group of reserve members of the Senate, led by Mr. Akkharawat Pongthanachalitkul and Mr. Patrapong Suphakorn, also known as lawyer Aun from Buriram, went to submit a letter to the Election Commission (EC). They urged the EC to courageously resolve the case against the vote-rigging syndicate involving 229 senators and forward it to the Supreme Court for a decisive ruling. The group presented comprehensive evidence including financial trails, LINE chat logs, audio clips, and forensic proof, supported by precedents set by the Supreme Court in other cases.
Mr. Patrapong revealed he came to warn the EC not to be arrogant or abuse their power by dismissing the vote-rigging complaint. He noted that the election process has been questionable from the start, and under Section 62 of the Act on the Selection of Senators, "if there is reasonable suspicion," the case must be sent to the Supreme Court for review. This means the law does not allow the EC to exercise discretion to withhold the case. Moreover, all the evidence presented constitutes sufficient reasonable suspicion.
He also hinted at suspicious undertones related to rumors about political parties negotiating to prosecute only two senators per group, in order to promote some reserve senators instead. He insisted that while political maneuvering may occur, legally the EC must submit the names of all 229 senators to the Supreme Court for disqualification to uphold the rule of law, rather than acting for anyone's individual benefit.
Beyond the vote-rigging case, Mr. Patrapong also addressed rumors that Mr. Sa-nguan Bunmee, Secretary-General of the EC, might lose his position due to failing the 2025 annual performance evaluation. He said part of the reason was Mr. Sa-nguan's behavior in delaying the vote-rigging case within the office, yet challenging the old EC panel by questioning their authority to assess his performance. He described such conduct as shameless. Given his evaluation score was only 50%, below the 60% minimum contract requirement, he should consider resigning. Regarding public opinion, Mr. Patrapong said the public would likely rate Mr. Sa-nguan's performance at only 0.1 out of 100. He therefore called on Mr. Sa-nguan to stop clinging to his position and step down.