Nanthana views the Election Commission's vote on the case involving collusion among 229 senators as a historic moment. She says the EC should disclose the voting results because it reflects transparency and suggests referring the case to the Supreme Court for judgment.
14 Sep 2026 GMT+7 Ms. Nanthana Nantaworaphas, Member of the Senate. She expressed her opinion at the Parliament building regarding the case in which the Election Commission (EC) is scheduled to meet to vote on the adjudication of the 2024 senator election fraud case. There are 229 accused, including 138 current senators, and 91 political party executives and affiliates. She personally believes this vote is a historic moment—once decided by the EC, it cannot be reversed—and that all Thai people are closely watching for the EC’s decision.
Several academics have agreed that if the senator collusion proceeds without legal consequences, meaning those involved are not held accountable, it would structurally seize power and severely distort Thai democracy. This means the legislature could be formed without integrity. Therefore, the EC’s role here might not be just prosecuting or dismissing the case. The EC might choose to prosecute some but not others, which is a unique characteristic of this EC.
Of the seven EC members, four were appointed by the current Senate—the same Senate accused in Subcommittee 26 of irregularly securing their positions. If the EC majority decides not to prosecute any of the 229 accused senators or related persons, the public will likely suspect quid pro quo, since the EC majority was selected by the accused Senate.
The best and most effective way to build trust in Thai politics is for the EC not to decide whom to prosecute but to send the entire case file from Subcommittee 26 on all 229 accused to the Supreme Court. The EC should forward the case properly, fairly, and transparently to allow the Supreme Court to conclusively prove innocence or guilt. If cleared, all will be innocent; if found guilty, the Supreme Court will rule accordingly. She believes the public will accept this process.
Regarding the EC’s reluctance to disclose how individual members voted, Nanthana said that independent agencies have always needed to be transparent and clear in their decisions. Therefore, if the EC votes, why not inform the public? Concealing votes would only fuel public suspicion and doubts. The best approach is to be transparent and clearly disclose each member’s vote. This allows the public to judge whether the EC’s seven members’ decisions align with the law and justice. She believes the EC should openly share the decision-making process so the media can ask why each member voted as they did.
Nanthana also commented on public demonstrations, saying they are an expression of freedom of speech, as long as they are peaceful and unarmed. Demonstrations allow the public to voice their opinions and inform the EC of public sentiment beyond social media. The EC should listen to society’s views as part of democratic mechanisms, balancing public opinion with legal evidence and facts before making decisions, but it must listen.