BANGKOK, THAILAND – The national lawyers’ association condemned the Election Commission’s criminal complaints against six election observers as “shameful” and legally questionable.
Sharp criticism of criminal complaints
The Lawyers Association of Thailand described the complaints filed by the Election Commission against six citizens who monitored a repeat vote in Bangkok as disproportionate and potentially unlawful. The six had been accused of obstructing election officials, violating state security, forming a secret association, unlawfully disclosing confidential information and breaching the Computer Crime Act.
According to the association, these charges targeted citizens who had merely monitored the process of a contested ballot. Several civil society groups and other organisations had already publicly opposed the Commission’s response and criticised the prosecution of the observers.
Repeat vote at centre of dispute
The incidents concerned a repeat ballot on the 8 February constitutional referendum, held on 22 February at polling unit 9 in constituency 15 in Bangkok’s Kannayao district. The six citizens were present as observers during this vote.
Their monitoring took place against a backdrop of mounting public concern over how the referendum had been conducted. These concerns, the association noted, formed the context for the observers’ actions.
No criminal intent seen
After examining the case files, the association stated that the six had acted not from criminal motives but from political motives aimed at ensuring an honest and fair election.
“There was no criminal intent as required for the alleged offences,”
said the Lawyers Association of Thailand, citing a statement on its Facebook page.
The lawyers argued that political motivation to protect electoral integrity could not be equated with criminal intent. In their view, this undermined the legal basis for the serious charges brought by the Commission.
Observation, not obstruction
The association stressed that monitoring the voting process, including taking photos and videos, did not amount to obstruction of election officials under Section 66 of the 2017 Organic Election Law. Such activities, it said, were part of legitimate public scrutiny.
It also noted that no eligible voter had lodged any complaint alleging that any of the six observers had disrupted the conduct of the ballot. For the lawyers, this absence of complaints further weakened the obstruction allegation.
Constitutional dimension
In the lawyers’ view, the citizens’ actions were consistent with constitutional principles designed to safeguard free and fair elections and therefore did not meet the threshold for sedition under Section 116 of the Criminal Code. Their conduct, they argued, supported rather than threatened the democratic process.
The association also rejected the accusations of forming a secret society under Section 209 and of unlawful disclosure of secrets under Section 322, stating that the actions had served the public interest and harmed no one. According to the statement, public oversight of election procedures could not reasonably be framed as clandestine activity.
Online information under fire
Regarding the Computer Crime Act, the association argued that disseminating information about election administration for public scrutiny did not amount to inputting false data into computer systems. The content, it said, related to the organisation of the vote and was intended to inform the public.
“There was no intention to harm the public, undermine national security or cause panic,”
said the Lawyers Association of Thailand in its assessment of the online activities.
The lawyers maintained that using digital platforms to document and question election management was part of legitimate public debate. Criminalising such actions, they warned, risked chilling constitutionally protected expression.
Civic oversight as constitutional duty
According to the association, the six citizens had scrutinised a state agency in the exercise of public power without displaying any partisan bias towards particular candidates or parties. Their role, it said, was to check the work of officials rather than to promote any political camp.
Such behaviour was in line with Section 78 of the constitution, which promotes public oversight of state power, and was additionally protected by Section 25, the lawyers argued. These provisions, they said, obliged authorities to tolerate citizen monitoring rather than punish it.
Risk of a false criminal complaint
The decision by the Election Commission to pursue criminal action against citizens who had exercised constitutionally protected rights could be seen as a violation of Section 234(1) of the constitution, the association warned. This provision concerns the conduct of state agencies in the exercise of their duties.
If no wrongdoing by the accused could be proven, the situation could in principle give rise to the offence of filing a false criminal complaint under Sections 172 and 173 of the Criminal Code. The lawyers suggested that, in such a case, legal scrutiny might shift from the observers to the Commission itself.
Call for withdrawal and apology
The association described the Commission’s move as a “shameful” step and cited possible grounds for the removal of Commission members. At the same time, it pointed out that the current constitution did not provide effective mechanisms for such a removal initiated by the public.
“The Election Commission should withdraw the complaints and issue a public apology,”
said the Lawyers Association of Thailand, arguing that a lack of trust in election management had driven citizens to observe the vote, even though this task, funded by taxpayers’ money, originally lay with the Commission itself.
Resignation appeal and legal aid
The association urged Commission members to consider resigning after the conclusion of the ongoing election to avoid further burdening the country and its people. It framed such a step as a way to restore confidence in electoral administration.
At the same time, the lawyers offered the six accused citizens free legal assistance. They also announced their readiness to represent them in any potential counter-complaints against the Election Commission.
Prominent figures among the accused
Those named in the complaints included former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, Parit Wacharasindhu, spokesperson of the People’s Party, and Thuntee Sukchotrat, director of D-Vote at Sripatum University. Their public profiles have drawn additional attention to the case.
Also mentioned were a photojournalist from the online outlet Spacebar, Thanarat Kuawattanapan, CEO of Domecloud, and Chaipon Chawalwanichcha, administrator of the Facebook page MIB Marketing In Black. Together, they represented a mix of former officials, political actors, academics and media figures.
Election Commission’s communication crisis
Since a failed press conference on 13 February, no representative of the Commission had publicly addressed the many concerns surrounding the 8 February vote. The absence of direct engagement has fuelled criticism from civil society.
Instead, the agency halted press conferences and relied on one-way communication, issuing daily written statements and updates. These documents, critics said, did little to quell doubts about the handling of the referendum.
Handling of results and data
In the previous week, the Election Commission confirmed results for 396 of 400 constituencies and planned to certify the 100 party-list seats in the coming week. This left only a small number of constituency results outstanding.
At the same time, the Ectreport69 website with unofficial provisional results was taken offline. The public was directed to a far less user-friendly official site on which only PDF tally records from individual polling stations could be downloaded, limiting broader analysis by citizens and observers.