Suksamruay is preparing to fly to Amnat Charoen to file a defamation complaint against Yingcheep of iLaw after he implicated her in a Senate vote-rigging case. She denies knowing the resort he mentioned and insists the offense is complete, even though Yingcheep admitted on a program that he has no evidence or photos to support his claims.
On 22 Jul 2026 GMT+7, Ms. Suksamruay Wantaneeyakul, Minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office and MP for Amnat Charoen from the Bhumjaithai Party, addressed accusations by Mr. Yingcheep Atchanont, director of the Internet Law Project (iLaw), that nine Bhumjaithai party members, including herself, were involved in the Senate vote-rigging case. She said she would let the Election Commission and legal authorities handle the matter, confident a conclusion would come soon. Personally, she believes this is political gamesmanship. She noted she was unaware such an event occurred because she had received official letters before and had already denied involvement during the 26th committee's investigation. The accusations lacked detailed specifics, and she denied knowing the resort Yingcheep mentioned. She believes that if there was any truth, the Election Commission and legal bodies would have summoned her, but so far only her name has appeared without any summons.
Ms. Suksamruay also said she plans to file a defamation lawsuit against Yingcheep in Amnat Charoen province and does not intend to respond further, as Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul, the Prime Minister and Minister of Interior and leader of the Bhumjaithai Party, has already addressed the issue fully. She stated she would not fall for opposition tactics to drag her to court and believes those who have wronged her will have sleepless nights.
Recently, Yingcheep admitted on a well-known channel that he has no evidence, photos, or video clips, relying only on witness statements to prompt opposition investigation. Ms. Suksamruay described this as irresponsible speech. Even with subsequent attempts to defend himself, she said this does not negate the fact that the offense has already been committed.