Bangkok: The Supreme Court recently commenced its first hearing involving 44 former Move Forward Party Members of Parliament (MPs), who face serious ethical violation charges for their involvement in proposing an amendment to Article 112 of the Criminal Code. The case, filed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), focuses on the MPs' actions surrounding the amendment process.

According to Thai News Agency, the initial hearing witnessed an intense focus on the cross-examination of witnesses, with Mr. Yutthapoom Thephastin Na Ayutthaya, the Director of the Investigation Group at the NACC, taking the stand. The court interrogated Mr. Yutthapoom about the circumstances leading to the signing of the amendment, including evidence of dissent from the House of Representatives and potential involvement in related demonstrations.

The case has drawn attention due to allegations that the former MPs experienced pressure to support the amendment, with some claiming they faced social media shaming and reduced party roles if they refused to sign. Mr. Theerachai, one of the former MPs, argued that the court failed to consider individual actions, as he had initially opposed the amendment during a party meeting before conceding to the majority vote.

The hearing also explored whether the NACC had taken into account any favorable evidence for the accused MPs, such as instances where charges were dropped or bail was granted. The defense argued that the NACC's focus remained on legislative actions, ignoring broader evidence and expert opinions.

Questions were raised about the investigation's adherence to legal standards and whether the NACC had handled the case in a manner that ensured fairness and due process. The defense team emphasized that evidence should be assessed on an individual basis and expressed concerns over the merging of distinct actions into a single legal document.

The next phase of the hearings is set to continue with further testimonies from NACC officials, as the legal teams contest the validity of the evidence and the interpretation of the law in the ongoing trial.