The media shareholding case against Future Forward Party (FFP) leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and a few other prospective MPs appear to revolve around two issues -- firstly, the interpretation of Section 98 (3) of the 2017 constitution and Section 42 (3) of the MPs Election Act which forbid an election candidate from being a proprietor or shareholder of a media company and, secondly, whether a verdict of the Supreme Court can be reversed.
In the case of Mr Thanathorn, there is no question about the fact that he used to own more than 600,000 shares in V-Luck Media Company. The contentious issue now is whether he transferred all the shares to the other people on Jan 8 before he registered his election candidacy.
According to Mr Thanathorn's defence, he was in Buri Ram province helping a candidate campaign on the morning of Jan 8 and, later on, travelled back in a chauffeur-driven van to Bangkok on the same day to complete the share transfer. However, the Trade Business Department of the Commerce Ministry was officially notified of the share transfer several days after the opening of candidacy registration.
His accusers including political activist Srisuwan Janya, who initiated the move for the Election Commission to disqualify Mr Thanathorn and the Isra News Agency which conducted an in-depth investigation of the case, have expressed doubt the FFP leader could have made it to Bangkok from Buri Ram on the same day to transfer the media shares on Jan 8.
To prove this contentious matter, DTAC, the mobile phone operator, has been asked to reveal Mr Thanathorn's phone usage records on Jan 8. Mr Thanathorn has reportedly given his consent to prove once and for all that he was in Bangkok on that specific day after his trip to Buri Ram to finish the transfer of his shares in V-Luck Media Company.
Mr Thanathorn's detractors also cited the case of another Future Forward candidate in Sakhon Nakhon, Phubet Henlod, who was disqualified by the Supreme Court for being a partner in Mars Engineering and Service Partnership Ltd.
Now, the second issue is about whether a Supreme Court ruling can be reversed or not. To begin with, a Supreme Court ruling is not a law, although it is often referred to as a precedent. There have been several cases where Supreme Court verdicts were overruled by new rulings made by the court.
Comparing Mr Thanathorn's case with that of Mr Phubet, one can see that the Supreme Court interpreted the media company stipulations strictly according to the letter of the law regardless of the reality that Mars Engineering and Service Partnership, in which Mr Phubet was a partner, is not engaged in media business of any kind, as the firm's memorandum stated otherwise.
It has become a normal business practice for start-ups to mention universal business objectives in their memoranda just in case they will, later on, shift from one business to another or expand into other fields. This avoids the trouble of going through yet more procedural red tape.
The problem with Mr Phubet's case is: Should the court strictly interpret the law to the letter without considering the actual facts? This is not to mention the original spirit of the law.
If Mr Phubet's case is to be used as a precedent for media shareholding cases, then Mr Thanathorn's fate may be sealed if it can be proven that he did not transfer his shares on Jan 8 and his case is brought before the Supreme Court for election cases.
The Phubet case may provide an answer to Supreme Court president Cheep Jullamon's question about why some people are not satisfied with the court's verdicts and why people do not accept the rules especially when the laws are the rules.
As for a young and rising star in politics like Mr Thanathorn, it is saddening that his political career could be cut short because of a late media share transfer which was clearly not an intentional violation of the law.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.
