The Supreme Court has scheduled the first hearing for the case involving 44 former Move Forward Party MPs, setting the initial witness examination for 25 August. Seventeen witnesses will be examined, and the court has established a one-year timeframe for the case review.
At 09:30 on 30 June 2026 at the Supreme Court, the court held the first hearing for case number Kom.Jor.1/2569, in which the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) filed a complaint seeking a ruling on 44 former Move Forward Party MPs accused of serious ethical violations related to jointly proposing amendments to Section 112 of the Criminal Code.
Today, the complainant side, represented by the NACC, was joined by Mr. Pattanapong Chanphetphun, Assistant Secretary-General of the NACC, attending the first hearing. The defendants, the 44 Move Forward MPs, mostly sent lawyers as their representatives. Some MPs attended in person, including Mr. Theerachai Panthumas, Bangkok MP from the People's Party, and Pol. Maj. Gen. Suphisal Phakdeenarunat, former party-list MP and former deputy leader of the Move Forward Party.
The court accepted all objections filed by the 44 defendants. The court then scheduled the evidence inspection for 4 August at 09:30 and instructed both parties to submit their hearing plans. If there is evidence requiring the court to issue summons before 25 July 2026, this must be submitted within seven days. The first witness hearing is set for 25 August, with subsequent sessions on 22 September and 27 October at 09:30. A total of 17 witnesses will be examined, with the court framing the case to be concluded within one year.
Additionally, the court ruled on a petition by Mr. Nopruj Worachitwutikul, former leader of the 2006 White Dove Group, who requested that the court order Mr. Natthapong Ruangpanyawut, leader of the People's Party, to suspend his duties due to his interviews and comments criticizing the Privy Councilor's participation in disaster relief meetings with the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation and his critiques of the Blue Regime government. The court found that the petitioner was not a party to the case and that there was insufficient evidence, so the court declined to change its order.
After the hearing, Pol. Maj. Gen. Suphisal, one of the defendants, said in an interview that he exercised his rights and followed the court process as normal. Regarding their defense strategy, they had submitted explanations disputing the legality of how evidence was obtained. He added that they would continue to fight through the judicial process as they understand it. He regarded this as the final step of his tenure as a member of parliament and of the Move Forward Party. What happens next depends on the court's justice. Today, he also had the opportunity to talk with former MPs and offer mutual encouragement.