Supachai Jaisamut urges the Election Commission (EC) to investigate how the Senate vote-rigging case files from Subcommittee 26 leaked to Parit Wacharasindhu and iLaw. He insists there is no gag lawsuit and challenges the opposition to hold a seminar at the Pullman Hotel to address the issue properly and in the right place.
On 26 Aug 2026 at 13:45 GMT+7, MP Supachai Jaisamut, party-list MP and head of the legal task force of the Bhumjaithai Party, held a press conference at the Parliament building. He called on Lt. Col. Chanin Noilek, Deputy Secretary-General of the Election Commission and chair of Subcommittee 26 of the EC’s investigation and inquiry committee, to investigate how the documents ended up with others after the Senate vote-rigging case files were published by Parit Wacharasindhu, party-list MP of the People’s Party, iLaw, and various online media. He said these are official secret documents improperly released.
Following news reports, Parit released documents identified as investigation files from Subcommittee 26 or possibly extending to Subcommittee 36. These documents detail the investigation reports on eligible voters applying for Senate positions, including numbers, sequence, and groups. These files were in the possession of Ekarin Don-dong, a member of Subcommittee 26 at the time, who was the director of the Special Equipment Research and Development Division, Technology Case, and the Data Verification Center at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).
Therefore, how these documents leaked to Parit remains unclear. Supachai questioned whether this was intentional or due to negligence in protecting the files. He urged the Election Commission to file a complaint with the police if the leak constitutes a criminal offense.
Supachai added that Lt. Col. Chanin, as chair, should be responsible for safeguarding all documents, yet these files reached outsiders. He called on the EC to promptly address this matter since external individuals have become brazen in demanding and publishing official documents, which he deems illegal. Some might argue it is not an offense since they are not officials, but if investigations show connections to those who disclosed the documents, they could face joint or accessory liability.
“I am not saying the documents came from Ekarin, but these files were under his possession and responsibility. How they ended up with Parit is a question that the EC must clarify,” Supachai said.
Regarding a planned seminar on the Senate vote-rigging case at the Pullman Hotel and whether it might implicate any political party, Supachai said he questions how the opposition obtained the Subcommittee 26 files. He also asked why files from Subcommittee 36 were not presented alongside for public comparison. He criticized the opposition for selectively revealing only what suits them instead of providing a full, transparent picture. He urged them to show the Subcommittee 36 documents for comparison.
Supachai affirmed that any alleged connections cited by the opposition are normal relationships among acquaintances. Even if phone call records exist, determining guilt should not be based solely on Parit's claims to the EC, expecting them to accept his statements without evidence.
“We cannot govern by appeasing one side. If you want to hold smaller events, go ahead—it could boost the economy. Remember, if ice cream is sold nearby, just buy some. Don’t say I’m ‘Ice Cream’ and refuse to eat it. It’s fine to enjoy ice cream. But I also want to remind iLaw to eat ice cream too, and to speak honestly and fully. If you go to the Pullman or anywhere else, make sure to go to the right Pullman and bring a crowd so the economy grows. Also clarify who pays for the rooms; don’t take a room and claim costs were shared like at Muang Thong, when actually one person paid,” he said.
When asked about People’s Party leader Natthapong Ruangpanyawut’s statement against gag lawsuits, Supachai replied that no one is being silenced. They speak openly. When asked if anyone has been sued to silence them, he said Parit has never been sued, while iLaw has had complaints filed against them. But they should not assume they are above reproach or special. Like many patriots, no one owns the right to love the country exclusively. Freedom must be exercised within limits, and those who defame others have the right to defend themselves.