The Reserve Senators group submitted their 100th and final letter to the Election Commission (EC) before the vote on the Senate election rigging case. They highlighted clear evidence, demanded transparent vote disclosure, forbade delays, expressed confidence that the truth will emerge, and warned the EC that if it believes recanted witness testimonies, it must file perjury charges against those witnesses.
On 14 Sep 2026 GMT+7, Police Lieutenant General Khamrob Panyakao, representing the Reserve Senators group and colleagues, followed up on the case and submitted their final letter to the Election Commission regarding the Senate election rigging case. He revealed that the Reserve Senators group has been urging the EC to manage the Senate election process with integrity and fairness for over two years, starting from 28 Jun 2024 GMT+7, the day after the Senate election. During this period, they have sent over 100 letters to the EC.
This is the last letter delivered to officials to be forwarded directly to all seven EC members before the decision, as all evidence has now been publicly revealed clearly.
They also raised concerns about the qualifications of the current EC members, noting that four EC commissioners were overwhelmingly endorsed by the current Senate, mostly by the 138 senators accused in the case. Another EC commissioner has a pending complaint at the National Anti-Corruption Commission, potentially conflicting with the principle of demonstrated integrity. These circumstances raise concerns under Section 8 of the Election Commission Act B.E. 2560 (2017) about possible conflicts of interest and ties with the accused. They urged all seven EC members to exercise prudence, conscience, and spirit in their evidence-based deliberations.
Police Lieutenant General Khamrob further requested that today's deliberations be clear and transparent. He asked each EC member to specify detailed reasons for their approval, disapproval, or objections to aid future legal review, which he believes will definitely occur. He urged the EC to openly announce voting results without secrecy, ambiguity, or delay—clarifying whether the rumored 5-to-2 vote is true and how many will face prosecution. While a central judgment draft that may take up to 60 days is acceptable, the vote outcome must be immediate to prevent public confusion.
When asked about a key witness filing a complaint that they were intimidated by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) officers into recanting their testimony and whether this would affect the EC's decision, Police Lieutenant General Khamrob said the witness personally testified before Investigation Team 26 with legal counsel two to three times, with investigators and prosecutors present. This testimony was presented to all seven EC members, who approved the witness's protection under Section 65. The EC, not Team 26, authorized this, so the EC has known the case details from the start.
Furthermore, Team 26 submitted the case file to the EC Secretary on 17 July, and it remained with the office through late August to early September with no witness movement. Subsequently, the government under Anutin Charnvirakul took office on 4 September, and Investigation Team 36 was appointed on 14 September. Only then did this witness seek to recant, which is an unusual development.
There is also the claim that the witness fabricated the notes, which is untrue because the witness had reported the initial notes to the media on 28 June 2024 GMT+7, having received them on the Senate election day, 27 June. Over ten other notes in Team 26’s case file were also authored by real individuals who testified in various hotels. Therefore, the claim of fabrication is false. If the EC accepts this claim, it must reconsider its judgment, as the EC should maintain a higher standard of discernment.
Police Lieutenant General Khamrob added that the Supreme Court has established a precedent that witnesses who recant after a long time without new evidence to contradict their original testimony should not be accepted. In this special DSI case, investigators also rejected such recantation because the witness, a former MP, testified personally. Claims of intimidation by unidentified 'black-clad men' lack evidence, no criminal complaint was filed, and no additional security was requested, so these claims carry no weight. If the EC accepts the recantation, it must prosecute the witness for perjury and immediately revoke their witness protection under Section 65. This raises the question of whether the EC has already taken such actions.
Regarding the issue that some complaints against those accused from the later batch (numbers 140-229) may be dropped, leaving only 89 prosecuted, mostly blue party executives, Police Lieutenant General Khamrob commented that the recanting witness was a key eyewitness present during the incident who could identify individuals and accused party executives. If some EC members attempt to favor the recanting witness to drop complaints, this is noteworthy.
However, if the case proceeds to the Supreme Court, the court has the authority to review Team 26’s original case file and examine all additional evidence. It is believed the truth will certainly emerge at the court stage.
Photo: Ekalak Mai Noi