Phradorn counters iLaw's claim, insisting he is not clever enough to devise the senator collusion system. He points out that Ekrach was politically pressured to bring down the Bhumjaithai Party and calls on dissenters to respect the Election Commission's process after its clear evidence-based decision made public in the case.
On 15 Sep 2026 at the Government House, Phradorn Prisananantakul, Minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office, addressed iLaw's claim that Ekrach Changlao, former Bhumjaithai MP from Khon Kaen and witness 16/26, implicated Phradorn as the initiator and architect of the senator collusion system. Phradorn said he had seen this information since Bhumjaithai MPs debated the 2027 budget bill and noted that witness 16/26 later recanted and accused him of inventing the system and collaborating with the party's executive committee. He stated frankly that he is not clever enough to devise such a comprehensive senator appointment system. On 14 Sep 2026, the EC chair clarified that while witness 16/26's allegations existed, they lacked corroborating evidence or supporting witnesses, and there was no proof such as programs or hired individuals to carry out the scheme. This weakens the testimony’s credibility, especially as the witness reversed the statement, leading the EC chair to disbelieve it. Phradorn reaffirmed that neither he nor the Bhumjaithai executive committee were involved in senator appointments.
When asked about iLaw publishing Phradorn's information despite the EC's ruling, he said he has consistently called for adherence to the rules and accepts scrutiny, ready to proceed through justice if the EC makes a resolution. He questioned whether those wanting to see the Bhumjaithai Party dissolved would accept the EC's decision if it did not match their desires. He noted the EC acted based on evidence, neither acquitting all nor dropping all charges, prosecuting 77 individuals with sufficient proof of wrongdoing, which they must defend in court. Phradorn viewed this as non-discriminatory and urged respect for the EC's decision regardless of whether it is favorable.
He observed that the process has discredited the Bhumjaithai Party from the start, aiming to dissolve it. Witness 16/26 accused the party leader, deputy leader, executive committee, and secretary-general, because if any executive committee member were removed, it could lead to party dissolution—this being the main objective. The entire case’s origin is from witness 16/26, who set the narrative intending to dissolve the Bhumjaithai Party.
Asked if the Bhumjaithai Party would file a complaint against iLaw, Phradorn replied they need to consult the party's legal team and lawyers to decide on further action.
When asked if Ekrach’s testimony indicated personal grievances, Phradorn said he did not know the witness’s motives. At that time, political pressures involved coercion and threats that compelled witness 16/26 to give such testimony.