Prachachon Party MP received documents regarding the Senate vote-rigging case. Panida urged the Election Commission (EC) to promptly submit the case to court, emphasizing there is no need to wait until all doubts are resolved. Meanwhile, Lawyer Aun plans to petition the Attorney General to ask the Constitutional Court to prosecute the Bhumjaithai Party for actions amounting to attempting to overthrow the government.
On 27 Jul 2026, Mr. Phanthil Nuamjerim, along with Ms. Panida Mongkolsawat, received documents from Mr. Phattharaphong Supaksorn, known as Lawyer Aun, a civil society representative who brought evidence regarding the Senate election case. He stated that the case is currently under consideration by the EC, citing clear evidence linking to a Senate vote-rigging process that may constitute an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and is against national security under the Penal Code.
He requested the Prachachon Party to consider its course of action as there is no trust in the EC’s handling of the case. He also plans to submit a petition to the Attorney General’s Office to forward the matter to the Constitutional Court, asserting that the vote-rigging involves government officials, senators, and outsiders. He urged action under Section 49 of the Constitution or to file criminal complaints concerning national security, noting that time to wait for the EC’s process may be limited, and thus requested the party to consider his complaint seriously.
Ms. Panida said she appreciates Lawyer Aun bringing additional information today. She will review the evidence to determine possible further action. She emphasized the need for society to closely follow the case, noting that only the EC has the authority to file election-related charges in court. For other criminal offenses, although agencies may delay, citizens can file complaints themselves. She urged the EC to act transparently and impartially, as the opposition has more witnesses and evidence.
Ms. Panida added, “Both Lawyer Aun’s submission and our efforts will push this forward fully. As Professor Siriphan Noksuan Sawatdee said in the second public evidence session on the Senate vote-rigging case, it is important to note that the EC’s role is not to prove facts beyond doubt before filing to court. Instead, the EC’s duty is to gather all possible evidence. If the investigation reasonably suggests corruption, the case can be immediately forwarded to court, leaving proof beyond doubt to the judiciary.” .
When asked if the evidence disclosed today related to the prior list of nine names, Mr. Phattharaphong said he brought 3,000 pages of evidence already submitted to the EC. The evidence is now also with the Prachachon Party and Mr. Yingcheep Atchanon, director of the Internet Law Project (iLaw). On election day nationwide, phones were confiscated and inaccessible, but after midnight, several senators called their kingpin at Kha Dron. The evidence he submitted today includes phone usage data from the DSI and EC, which civil society also has. He said no one should ask where the evidence came from as everyone must seek the truth together.
“The EC may not be acting independently; they might be waiting for signals from certain senators. It’s hard to guess whether clean authorities are manipulating the EC behind the scenes or what their final plan is. News suggests they might release 20–30 people with clear money ties, excluding others involved. Therefore, civil society must unite to shake things up. If you continue to obey those in power pulling your strings, you’re just waiting to go to jail. This Friday I will file a complaint under Section 157 accusing the EC of neglecting its duties.” Mr. Phattharaphong said.
Mr. Phanthil added that lawsuits intended to silence civil society are confirmed to be for the public interest. If those accused or implicated are political figures, they have a duty to clarify rather than sue back. The EC has threatened citizens, yet it should ensure transparent and straightforward selection of senators. Instead, it intimidates the public. This raises questions about the EC’s failure to perform its duties and its threatening behavior, suggesting witness protection is necessary.
Ms. Panida said she appeals to all witnesses. It remains unclear when the EC will conclude this matter, possibly with an internal decision in early August. Any witnesses involved with evidence relevant to the case, concerned about fairness, can send information to the opposition party.