The court is set to rule on the dissolution case , filed on the grounds that its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, loaned the party Bt191 million ahead of the 2019 election.

“Officers from two police stations, Makkasan and Thungsonghong, will join forces to patrol perimeter of the Constitutional Court on Chaeng Watthana Road and monitor the behaviour of Future Forward Party’s supporters who are expected to gather at the court tomorrow,” he said. “Furthermore, we will dispatch an additional company of officers from Crowd Control and Protection Division if the situation escalates”.

Somprasong added that there are no sign of trouble at the venue as of now. “We will also deploy police officers at the head office of Future Forward Party on New Phetburi Road where some of the party members will be stationed tomorrow,” he said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan said today that he did not have any concern regarding the court’s verdict tomorrow, and believed that all precautionary measures would be in place to handle the situation, adding that “Whatever the verdict is, the Future Forward Party must abide by the court’s decision”.

A vote on the motion saw 242 members of the House of Representatives opposing it while 215 supported the idea and two did not vote.

Before the vote, Piyabutr said that the motion would not affect the existing government led by Prayut Chan-o-cha but the censure debate was what the government had to worry about.

He also said that he might be debating in the house for the last time since FFP faces a Constitutional Court ruling on February 21 on disbanding of the party. He said the motion would be an agenda for the nation, not the opposition or the government.

The opposition led by FFP yesterday said in the debate that coups had been obstacles in Thailand’s development.

They also asked House Speaker Chuan Leekpai to vote in support of the motion to show that he did not support coups. However, the house speaker did not vote.

He pointed out that the case has similarities to past controversies, judicial rulings on which triggered even greater controversy that spun out of control and contributed to Thailand’s political divide.

“I am worried that the media might criticise the Constitutional Court and cause offence,” Ramet said. “I beg everyone to trust the court to bring about justice in this case and put the country’s best interests above everything else. Don’t get too emotional. Let go of prejudice.”

The court is set to rule on a request that the party be dissolved on the grounds that its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, loaned it Bt191 million ahead of the 2019 election.

Section 92(3) allows the Constitutional Court to consider disbanding any political party that violates Section 72.

Section 72 prohibits political parties and their members from receiving a donation of money or assets from any source while knowing it is unlawful or having reasonable doubts of it being unlawful.

The termination of political parties can be ruled based on Section 91, Section 92 and the amalgamation of political parties.

The Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission had earlier revealed that FWP leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit had total assets, include his spouse’s, valued at Bt5.632 billion, with Bt683,303 debt, Bt188 million income and Bt66 million expense.

Thannathorn gave his party loans totalling Bt191.2 million — Bt161.2 in the first instalment and Bt30 in the second installment.

The Election Commission made a case for the dissolution of the party to the Constitutional Court. The court accepted the case on December 25, 2019.

The first step of the dissolution process begins with the registrar who needs to examine the related facts and announce the termination of the political party in the gazette if the case was presented to the registrar or the registrar sees any reason to disband the party.

If the party has members who are members of the House of Representatives, the registrar must file a petition to the Constitutional Court within 15 days of the case being presented to the registrar and the court will announce the dissolution in the gazette.

In the last 10 years, 36 parties have been dissolved in Thailand, including Thai Rak Thai Party in 2007 and Thai Raksa Chart Party in 2019.

Piyabutr said Future Forward was approved as an official party on October 3, 2018, and immediately began a campaign seeking funds and donations “since the law of political parties and elections required parties to take several steps in order to propose candidates”.

Meanwhile, the National Council for Peace and Order forbade political activities and the Election Commission (EC) ordered parties to only receive donations from their executive boards, so Future Forward had to wait until December 2018 before the political limitation was lifted, Piyabutr said.

He said political parties could take loans since they were not income or donations but debt.

Moreover, the EC procedure was unjustified, since it did not give his party an opportunity to explain their actions, Piyabutr added.

He said the Constitutional Court cannot dissolve the party based on Section 210 of the Constitution since the dissolution verdict only appears in Section 92. He therefore asked the court to dismiss the case.

Regarding other accusations under Section 62, 66 and 72, Piyabutr confirmed that the Future Forward Party did not violate the Constitution and any penalty under those sections would not result in dissolution.

Yongyuth arrived at the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases today (February 17) for a hearing, but the Supreme Court rejected his petition that he had previously filed. Therefore, corrections officers took him to Bangkok Remand Prison to serve the two-year sentence.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission had accused Yongyuth of violating Section 157 of the Penal Code, which prohibits an official from wrongfully exercising or not exercising any of his or her duties to the injury of any person, or dishonestly exercising or omitting to exercise any of his/her functions.

The Office of the Prime Minister’s regulation allows the management of official welfare to apply for state property for two types of businesses – regular business such as gas stations, shops and markets, and special business such as boxing rings, golf courses, hippodromes and rehabilitation centres for the Army.

Part of the revenue from the businesses would be considered rent and Treasury Department fees, and the rest would be handed over to the RTA welfare fund.

“What the Army has done today is to bring back legitimacy,” Teerawat said “It will be transparent and can be inspected. After we pay the Treasury Department, the remaining money will belong to the Army’s welfare fund to support soldiers’ families.”

Finance permanent secretary Prasong Poontaneat said the army had about a million rai of land that the Treasury Department would manage and confirmed that the money would not directly return to the Army, but the cost which the Army had to pay would be lower.

The RTA previously asked the department to help solve the problem of 700,000 rai of state property being occupied, by making a three-year rental contract which will control unregulated occupancy and increase the country’s income.

Related Story: Thanathorn seeks more public scrutiny of Military

Pareena had claimed in a Facebook post that Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Pannika were allegedly involved in bomb incidents in several areas of Bangkok and the unrest in three southern provinces, prompting Pannika to sue her for defamation under Sections 326 and 328 of the Criminal Law.

After reporting to the court today, Pareena told the press she was “100 per cent confident that she was not guilty and would neither seek reconciliation nor any settlement”.

She added that she would hold a press conference at Phalang Pracharath Party headquarters tomorrow.

Phongsakorn was widely criticised by netizens on social media after FWP declared its strong stance in favour of reforming the Military with one of the suggested measures being asking retired personnel to move out of welfare houses.

Phongsakorn said in his message that he will move out of the house by March 31 to coincide with the Military’s annual promotion and reassignment. He added that he will resign from all his roles in the party with immediate effect.

FWP spokeswoman Pannika Wanich said that Phongsakorn was on an overseas trip at the moment and the party would hold an official press conference to address the issue later. “Future Forward Party is committed to moving forward in reforming the Military forces as it had promised the public since before the 2019 election,” she said. “There is no better time than now to start acting when all parties including the government, the Army chief and the people agree that Thai Military is in dire need of total reform.”

The party accepts all criticism and will use them to further improve itself, and would like to apologise to all party members and supporters for the incident involving Phongsakorn, she added.

Thai politics has been heating up as the charter court will decide the fate of FWP on Friday over its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit lending the party Bt191 million.

Both camps — supporters and rivals of FWP — have launched political campaigns on www.change.org platform.

Charnvit Kasetsiri, an FWP member and former rector of Thammasat University, has launched a campaign against dissolution of the party. Among prominent academics joining the campaign are Seksan Prasertkul, Sulak Sivaraksa, Nidhi Eawsriwong and Gothom Arya. Seksan was a student leader during the October 14, 1973 uprising against the then-military government while Sulak is an outspoken social critic. Nidhi Eawsriwong is a well-known history professor and columnist while Gothom Arya is adviser to Mahidol University’s Institute for Human Rights and Peace.

Also joining the campaign are celebrities from the entertainment industry such as Kachapa Tanchareon ( Moddum), a TV show host, and business leaders Banyong Pongpanich and Prida Tiasuwan.

The Constitutional Court had dissolved the Thai Raksa Chart Party before the March general election over the party naming a member of the Royal Family as its prime minister candidate. The court has in the past dissolved Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai and its successor People’s Power Party.

Gothom told The Nation on Sunday that there were two reasons behind his signing up for the campaign; first, dissolving a political party is against advancing the cause of democracy, and secondly, law enforcement authorities have applied double standards.

“As I understand, countries rarely dissolve any political party since it is a very important issue. Political parties are essential institutions for the development of democracy,” he said.

“In Thailand, we have witnessed many political parties being dissolved and such actions have derailed democracy,” he stated.

In this specific case, the FWP has been targeted by the Election Commission and others for many legal reasons, but other parties are spared even though they may be involved in many controversial actions, Gotom lamented.

“I think law enforcement authorities have applied discriminatory practices against the FWP,” he said.

Asked about the risk of landing in trouble for joining the campaign if the judges rule such a campaign is contempt of court, Gothom admitted that he was not keen on this legal aspect.

More than 31,000 people had signed up at 7.10pm on Sunday while there is also a campaign to dissolve the FWP for which 2,355 people have already signed up.

Many political observers believe that dissolving the FWP will lead to large-scale street protests. The party has strongly supported the young generation and liberal voters, which earned the party 80 MP seats in the House of Representatives after the March general election, making it the third-biggest party in terms of seats in the house.

Some have suggested that the court should defer the verdict reading as it is set for just few days before the no-confidence debate in Parliament will take place. They have argued that the timing of the verdict would affect the Parliament debate while others argue people should not put pressure on the court.