Parit warned that if by 14 September the Election Commission does not send 229 people involved in the Senate vote-rigging case to court, the matter will not end easily. He vowed to face the issue in parliament and answer questions, adding that while many speak of fate, he personally fears some 'certain colors' are above the law.
At 12:50 p.m. on 12 September 2026 at the Parliament. Parit Vacharasindhu, a list Member of Parliament from the Prachachon Party. Spoke about political developments ahead of the. Election Commission's consideration on whether to prosecute the Senate vote-rigging case. On 14 September, he said that today's (12 September) activities of the Parliamentary Commission on Court Affairs, independent agencies, the Attorney General's Office, state enterprises, public organizations, and parliamentary funds serve to show the demand for independent agencies to perform their duties transparently and free from political interference—that is the role of the Election Commission in the Senate vote-rigging case.
He reaffirmed the Prachachon Party's demand that the EC should vote to prosecute all 229 accused individuals, as proposed by Investigation Committee 26, by sending the case to the Supreme Court. Although this proposal does not definitively conclude that all 229 committed wrongdoing, he believes the EC should file charges and allow the court to clear doubts and determine which of the 229 are guilty of Senate vote-rigging.
Parit continued that there are two reasons why he believes the EC should prosecute: first, regarding evidence—comparing to past cases where the EC prosecuted based on just a few chat messages about vote exchanges or pairings without even offering money or benefits, the evidence involving these 229 people is a coordinated operation clearly linked to financial transactions, scheduled meetings at vote-list centers, and vote lists used on Senate election day.
Second, it cannot be denied that at least 4 of the 7 EC members have conflicts of interest because they were endorsed by the accused Senate members. These 4 EC members should not use their discretion to benefit those who endorsed them. At minimum, the other 3 EC members without conflicts should share their opinions and vote similarly to avoid accusations of blocking the case from reaching court.
When asked if the activities by the public and Prachachon Party are seen as pressuring the EC, Parit said he believes it is not wrong for MPs and citizens to demand that independent agencies perform their legal duties. They are not asking the EC to break laws. On the contrary, they worry the EC may act improperly and apply inconsistent standards across cases. Hence, they hold public activities to communicate openly and scrutinize the EC to ensure it acts fairly and legally. He said such demands are not wrong but a basic duty of MPs.
Regarding leaked documents contradicting witness testimony in the Senate vote-rigging case, Parit responded by questioning whether these are leaked or deliberately released documents, noting they align with points raised by Bhumjaithai Party MPs. He said there is abundant and varied evidence beyond a single witness’s testimony. Even if a witness recants and they believe the recantation, it does not negate the hundreds of other witnesses and evidence such as financial trails, phone call records, vote lists, and vote counts matching the lists. A single witness recanting cannot erase the substantial evidence.
Parit also urged consideration that this witness comes from Khon Kaen Province and testified twice: initially giving testimony unfavorable to Bhumjaithai Party, then recanting to favor them. He noted the first testimony was under political conditions where Bhumjaithai lacked power, and the second occurred when the party had influence, suggesting political pressure caused the recantation. He urged authorities to examine evidence from both testimonies to see which aligns with other witness facts and evidence like financial records and vote lists.
"The second recantation contradicts facts by claiming no vote lists existed. How then do we explain CCTV footage on election day showing Senate candidates submitting vote lists and EC officials catching them?"
He added that if the EC’s decision is to dismiss the case or not prosecute despite clear evidence, the issue will not end. The EC should prepare answers for when it reports to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 16 September, explaining to MPs and the public. Meanwhile, some accused individuals in the executive branch must also prepare responses for the no-confidence debate.
Legally, he communicated to the accused that if the EC dismisses the petition, they should not assume the case will not reach the Supreme Court. He warned the EC that if they dismiss despite clear evidence, it is the right of the victims to sue the EC for misconduct. The victims are ready to pursue all legal avenues to ensure justice.
However, if the EC filters out cases and prevents evidence-backed matters from reaching court, and this Senate vote-rigging case succeeds without accountability, the result will be a political system where the 'blue color' can act with impunity. He concluded by saying, "Many speak about being beyond fate, but what I fear most is that some 'certain colors' are above the law."