Bangkok: "Peerapan" points out that the collusion case involving senators must be handled through the entire process, emphasizing that the Election Commission has a duty to gather evidence and submit it to the court for a decision, and should not selectively prosecute only certain individuals.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Peerapan Salirathavipak, leader of the Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party, commented on the legal proceedings related to allegations of collusion in the selection of Senate members, stating that if the facts and evidence indicate a coordinated effort, the prosecution should cover all individuals involved and not selectively target specific individuals.
Mr. Peerapan stated that in cases like this, if there was a division of labor and a shared intention, the assessment of liability should consider the overall actions of the entire group. The crucial role of the Election Commission (EC) is to gather all the facts, witness testimonies, and credible evidence before submitting the case to the court for legal proceedings.
"The Election Commission is not the one who ultimately decides who is guilty or innocent, but it has the duty to act according to the powers prescribed by law. If it sees sufficient evidence to believe that there has been dishonest or unfair conduct, it can refer the matter to the court so that the court can consider and make a judgment based on all the evidence," Mr. Peerapan said.
Mr. Peerapan also addressed the observation that some witnesses had retracted their testimony, stating that the retraction of a single witness should not be used as the primary reason to end or alter the direction of a case, provided there are other witnesses and evidence that can be considered. Furthermore, the witness in question claimed to have been threatened, but it remains unclear who threatened them or whether the threats actually occurred.
"If a witness retracts their testimony, it's necessary to investigate the origins of the original and new testimony and give weight to all evidence. It's not acceptable to selectively interpret the testimony of one individual to steer the entire case in a particular direction. Furthermore, unsubstantiated claims of intimidation without any evidence of who threatened them are insufficient to prove genuine intimidation."
Mr. Peerapan also stated that if it is later revealed that the retraction of testimony resulted from coercion, pressure, or a mutual agreement to help someone escape responsibility, it may raise issues that relevant agencies need to investigate further to determine if other offenses have been committed. Furthermore, the witness should also be prosecuted for making false statements to an official.
"Therefore, this matter should not be viewed solely based on what one witness says, but rather the entire system of evidence must be examined, and the judicial process must be allowed to make a judgment. If there is evidence, it must be handled fairly and impartially, without discrimination, and with the same standards applied to all parties," Mr. Peerapan said.