The Supreme Court Election Division is reviewing evidence in a case where substitute senators Dang and Somphan are accused of registering under incorrect occupational groups. Before the complainant's witnesses are heard on 24 Nov 2026, Somchai and Pao are preparing to testify. The parties expect a verdict within December.
On 6 Nov 2026, the Supreme Court Election Division held its second evidence review for case number Lot Sa W 10/2569. Mr. Akarawat Phongthanachalitkul, a substitute senator, submitted a petition under Section 44 of the 2018 Senate Election Act to challenge the qualifications of two candidates from Amnat Charoen Province, Ms. Dang Kongma and Mr. Somphan Palasak, who allegedly registered under the wrong occupational groups—selling fresh pork and noodles.
The petitioner stated these occupations fall under Group 19, the independent or trading occupations, but the candidates were certified as senators in Group 10, the 'other business operators' group. He requested the court to overturn the Election Commission's ruling related to this issue.
After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Akarawat said he has fought to clear public doubts about the Senate case, which led to the Supreme Court's involvement. Today's session reviewed evidence regarding the candidacies of Ms. Dang and Mr. Somphan. The hearing was postponed once to allow the opponents to submit additional objections. Today, the opponents requested another postponement, citing pending rulings on the court's jurisdiction and the petitioner's authority, and whether the Election Commission's dismissal could be overturned. The court rejected this request, noting the petitioner had not filed related documents nor specified a timeline.
Mr. Akarawat added that they presented all facts, documentary evidence, and 11 witnesses to the court, which allowed four complainant witnesses to testify and permitted requests for additional documents. He emphasized to the public that this Senate fraud case is a major scandal damaging the country, and if not resolved through justice, it could affect other institutions. He noted the Election Commission's 5-2 vote to appeal to the Constitutional Court to overturn the Supreme Court ruling was unprecedented. Therefore, it is vital to present facts to the public showing the judicial process functions regardless of disagreement. He also revealed that the Election Commission attempted to delay evidence gathering until January 2027, but the court insisted on expediting the case, scheduling complainant witnesses for 24 Nov 2026 and opponents' witnesses for 8 Dec 2026.
When asked about the Election Commission's appeal to the Constitutional Court regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case and whether this issue had arisen before, Mr. Somchai said the commission is exercising its right to ask the Constitutional Court to confirm its ruling is final. The Constitutional Court will consider Article 120, paragraph 2, about its role in reviewing other courts' duties. The constitution only specifies the Constitutional Court's authority over five bodies: the House of Representatives, the Senate, ministers, the Cabinet, and independent agencies—not courts. Whether the Constitutional Court accepts the case initially is uncertain, but he believes it likely will reject the petition.
Regarding today's case, the petitioner's witness list initially raised the court's doubts about the necessity of witnesses including Mr. Somchai and Mr. Yingcheep Atchanont. However, the court allowed both to testify after the defense explained their testimony relates to the candidates' qualifications. A positive development is the court's acceleration of the case, as the Election Commission had requested postponement until January 2027, but the court scheduled hearings starting 24 Nov 2026, showing seriousness. A verdict is expected by December 2026. The court framed the ruling around three main points: its jurisdiction, whether the candidates registered in the wrong group—examining facts, evidence, and rules—and how it will rule on revoking the Election Commission's decisions and the qualifications of the two senators, including possible annulment of their appointments.
Mr. Somchai also noted there are five senators facing complaints, with three cases already accepted by the court from the group filed by substitute senators, and several more complaints pending decisions on acceptance.
Mr. Thongchai Pornset, lead lawyer for the complainant group, said they will present four complainant witnesses and several documents. The hearing for the complainant's witnesses is scheduled for 24 Nov 2026. The court has deemed these witnesses important to the case's content, and they are confident a verdict addressing public concerns will be reached within December.