From a legal standpoint, two shareholding cases that the Election Commission (EC) filed with the Constitutional Court -- one submitted this month against Future Forward Party (FFP) leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and the other made one year ago against Foreign Affairs Minister Don Pramudwinai -- are almost identical, as there could be a slight difference in technicalities. However, they were given different treatment by the EC.
And on Thursday, the Constitutional Court handed down a different initial decision.
Last year, the court allowed Mr Don to remain in his cabinet job while the case went to trial, citing a lack of evidence that the case would cause damage to the public or the government. On Thursday, it ruled differently that Mr Thanathorn, the rising anti-military political star, must put his role as an MP in parliament on hold.
In fact, the EC should not have pursued the case against Mr Thanathorn because the previous Constitutional Court's ruling in October last year, which acquitted Mr Don in his case, should have set a precedent for similar cases that followed; This is a universal and international legal principle.
Mr Don was accused of violating the 2017 constitution that prohibits a cabinet minister or their spouse from holding shares in excess of 5% in a company. The EC alleged that his wife, Ms Nareerat, failed to reduce her shareholdings in two companies to meet the limit within the set deadline of 30 days after the charter took effect on April 6, 2017.
However, Mr Don cited two share transfer certificates, dated April 27 and 30 respectively, signed by his wife, the recipient and a witness, as the only valid evidence to prove that the share transfers took place within that time frame. The EC ruled out the validity of the certificates, saying they could have been backdated. It cited the companies' annual shareholdings reports, officially called the Or Bor Jor 5 form, as the evidence for the share transfers. The firm submitted the forms to the Ministry of Commerce six months later in October 2017.
But the Constitutional Court ruled that the certificates were valid documents for the share transfers and thus Ms Nareerat had reduced the shareholdings within the deadline. Mr Don was acquitted.
The accusation against Mr Thanathorn has similar grounds. The EC accused Mr Thanathorn of violating the election law by failing to transfer his shares in V-Luck Media Co prior to his registration in February as an MP candidate for the March 24 general election. As in Mr Don's case, the FFP boss used a share transfer document dated Jan 8 to prove his case. But the EC still cited the Or Bor Jor 5 form, dated March 21, as the document for his share transfer. Mr Thanathorn insisted the form is from the annual report, not the document that validates the share transfer. Financial experts also agreed with him on this point.
The case against Mr Thanathorn will revolve around this matter of documentation alone. It is not legally complex, but politically sensitive. The EC applied double standards when it came to its investigation into the two cases. While it spent 389 days investigating Mr Don's case and hearing his defence, it provided Mr Thanathorn only 16 days for the entire process.
Mr Thanathorn did not get a fair deal from the EC. He thus deserves a fair trial in court. And if a final decision on the case ends up starkly different from the previous similar case, a clear and vivid explanation will be required.
