Prachatai English

Journalists in a wasteland: Field notes from an illegal waste dumping site

eng editor 1 — Sat, 14 Nov 2026 16:50:01 +0000

Journalists in a wasteland: Field notes from an illegal waste dumping site

"Pollution knows no border. It doesn't know where the fence is."

"It doesn't care who the land belongs to."

In the east of Thailand, industrial waste dumping sites have been spotted in several provinces. Pictures of waste piling high appeared in the news as residents and local activists voice concerns of pollutions and related health issues. Meanwhile, both activists and journalists covering these stories face a risk of lawsuits.

A group of journalists visited one of these sites in Prachinburi. This is a field note from that trip.

eng editor 1 Sat, 2026-11-14 - 23:50

Multimedia

Appeal Court sentences Anon Nampa to prison for criticizing royal defamation law

eng editor 1 — Sat, 14 Nov 2026 15:41:47 +0000

Appeal Court sentences Anon Nampa to prison for criticizing royal defamation law

The Appeal Court on 12 November sentenced human rights lawyer Anon Nampa to 4 years in prison on royal defamation and computer crimes charges for 3 Facebook posts which called for monarchy reform and criticized the use of the royal defamation law against critics of the monarchy.

Two of the posts, made on 1 January 2021, say that the royal defamation law should not be used to silence critics of the monarchy and that people should be able to talk about the monarchy when it comes to public matters even if they do not praise it. One of the posts also asks how losing faith in the monarchy could be an offense and if people are required to believe in the monarchy even if its members do not behave appropriately.

The third post, on 3 January 2021, criticized royalist groups for trying to silence dissidents when questions are raised about the monarchy. Anon wrote that royalists are refusing to see the problem when the problem is caused by the monarchy , such as lavish spending of the government’s money. He also asked if people would find it acceptable if the Prime Minister or other government official relocated to Germany and flew back and forth between Thailand and Germany with an entourage.

The complaint against Anon was filed by Nangnoi Assawakittikorn, a former member of the royalist group Thailand Help Centre for Cyberbullying Victims. Anon was later charged and indicted for royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act.

The Criminal Court on 17 January 2024 found Anon guilty and sentenced him to 4 years in prison. He subsequently filed an appeal.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that the Appeal Court upheld the January 2024 verdict of the Criminal Court. It ruled that although he referred to the monarchy in most of his posts, one post mentioned the King. The court took it to mean that Anon accused King Vajiralongkorn of acting undemocratically, taking state property for himself, and being irresponsible with his money, and ruled that the post was defamatory. It also noted that the King is not an ordinary person, and is therefore entitled to greater legal protection; Anon’s offence cannot be considered using the same definitions as normal criminal defamation law.

Anon is currently facing a cumulative prison sentence of around 34 years and 5 months. He is in the process of appealing all of his charges.

eng editor 1 Sat, 2026-11-14 - 22:41

News

Thailand must not return five Uyghurs to China, warn UN experts

eng editor 1 — Sat, 14 Nov 2026 13:09:03 +0000

Thailand must not return five Uyghurs to China, warn UN experts

The Government of Thailand must refuse to extradite five Uyghur men to the People’s Republic of China against their will, UN experts said today (13 November), warning that they were at real risk of serious and irreparable harm if returned.

Two individuals have even been transferred to immigration detention after completing their prison sentences and now await extradition.

“The mistreatment of the Uyghur minority in China is well-documented by UN human rights mechanisms, for example, in the OHCHR Assessment in August 2022, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and torture based on ethnicity, culture, religion and national security,” the experts said.

“International law prohibits transferring a person to a country where there is a real risk of serious human rights violations, including arbitrary deprivation of life, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enforced disappearance, and persecution,” they said.

Thailand’s own Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act prohibits return of individuals where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be at risk of torture or enforced disappearance.

“Thailand’s obligation of non-refoulement applies to extradition as well as deportation,” the experts said. “It applies even if a person is accused of an offence.” 

Measures to counter-terrorism and violent extremism measures in China have previously prompted concerns from UN experts. These have included mass arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, mass surveillance, compulsory re-education, forced labour, restrictions on minority rights, and deaths in custody.

The five men now at risk are part of a larger group of over 350 Uyghurs who fled China and were detained near the Thai border in 2014. In 2015, Thailand deported 109 of them to China.

Back in January 2025, China requested the return of 45 Uyghurs from Thailand, including the five men now at risk, allegedly for illegally crossing borders. “International law guarantees the right of every person to leave their own country,” the experts said.

Subsequently, in February 2025, 40 of them were returned to China against their consent, despite objections by the experts. Their fate and whereabouts are unknown, and Thai Government monitoring of returnees has been largely ineffective.

Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission has concluded that those deportations violated the obligation of non-refoulement, and insisted the remaining five men must not be returned.

In November 2025, Thai authorities announced that the Uyghurs would be subject to potential extradition rather than deportation. It is unknown whether any extradition requests have been received or what charges China might bring.

The five men now risking extradition have been detained for 12 years – two of them since childhood. All five were convicted of attempting to escape detention in Thailand.

The five men have been largely held in de facto incommunicado detention for many years, in poor conditions, and with limited access to lawyers, family members, civil society or UN officials.

“We call on Thailand and other States to cooperate to resettle the men in a safe country.”

The experts have previously raised similar concerns with the Governments of China and Thailand.

*The experts:

- Grażyna Baranowska (Chair-Rapporteur), Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez (Vice-Chair), Gabriella Citroni, Mohammed Al-Obaidi and Anjli Parrin, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
- Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
- Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues
- Morris Tidball-Binz, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
- Pau Pérez Sales, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Matthew Gillett (Chair-Rapporteur), Ethan Hee-Seok Shin (Vice-Chair on Follow Up), Sabrina Mahtani and Nicolás Laino, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

eng editor 1 Sat, 2026-11-14 - 20:09

Pick to Post

World leaders should increase pressure on Myanmar junta to end abuses, says Human Rights Watch

eng editor 1 — Fri, 13 Nov 2026 07:10:40 +0000

World leaders should increase pressure on Myanmar junta to end abuses, says Human Rights Watch

World leaders gathering in the Philippines on November 15-17, 2026, should more forcefully address the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, Human Rights Watch said on 11 November. The East Asia Summit and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and partner summits will include leaders of ASEAN nations and the United States, European Union, Japan, China, and India, among other countries.

In a November 5 letter to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines, the ASEAN chair and summit host, Human Rights Watch urged ASEAN not to recognize or endorse the sham elections earlier in 2026 that resulted in junta leader Min Aung Hlaing assuming Myanmar’s presidency. In recent months, several governments in ASEAN and the region have hosted Min Aung Hlaing, despite the junta’s rejection of ASEAN’s calls to address human rights and humanitarian issues. On November 11, the Philippine government confirmed that Min Aung Hlaing would not attend the summit. ASEAN partners should urge the bloc to continue blocking junta officials from representing Myanmar at ASEAN meetings, Human Rights Watch said.

“ASEAN could play an important role in bringing a stop to Myanmar military abuses,” said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Governments should be increasing pressure on the junta to end its attacks on civilians, lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, and begin credible dialogues about transitioning to civilian rule.”

As commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s military both before and after its 2021 military coup, Min Aung Hlaing has led numerous abusive military operations throughout the country, many including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Junta authorities have arrested more than 32,000 people for opposing military rule and at least 2,300 have reportedly died in custody. Detainees face torture and ill-treatment. Over 6,600 of those arrested have been women, and Human Rights Watch recently documented that many of them have experienced sexual violence as well as dangerous and sometimes deadly denials of prenatal and obstetric medical care.

Days after the ASEAN meetings, on November 19, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague will deliver its judgment in the landmark case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Min Aung Hlaing in 2017 oversaw the sweeping campaign of massacres, rape, and arson against ethnic Rohingya in northern Rakhine State.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating Min Aung Hlaing for alleged atrocity crimes. In November 2024, the ICC prosecutor’s office asked judges to issue an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing for his role in alleged crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution during the 2017 campaign against the Rohingya. ICC judges have yet to issue a public decision on the arrest warrant request.

During ASEAN meetings, members should focus on better addressing Myanmar’s dire humanitarian and human rights situation and protecting the rights of Myanmar people, including those who have fled to neighboring countries. Human Rights Watch, in its letter to President Marcos, outlined credible steps for doing so.

“Concerned governments need to undertake tougher measures to pressure and compel Myanmar’s junta to stop committing abuses and engage in real dialogue,” Sifton said.

eng editor 1 Fri, 2026-11-13 - 14:10

Pick to Post

Man indicted for royal defamation over FB posts, denied bail

eng editor 1 — Thu, 12 Nov 2026 08:55:59 +0000

Man indicted for royal defamation over FB posts, denied bail

Nattakan Jaiaree, a 40-year-old motorcycle taxi driver, has been denied bail after he was indicted on a royal defamation charge over three Facebook posts made in 2022.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) said Nattakan was indicted on 10 November. The Phatthalung Provincial Court denied him bail on the grounds that the offence is serious and he is likely to repeat it.

TLHR noted that the court believes he is likely to be a repeat offender although he has not been found guilty and has no other royal defamation charge against him.

The complaint against Nattakan was filed by Songchai Niamhom, leader of the ultra-royalist King Protection Group. Songchai is a known serial royal defamation complainant who has filed at least 19 royal defamation and sedition complaints against activists and social media users with the police in several southern provinces. Many of the accused do not live in the south and so are forced to shoulder the burden of travel costs to attend court appointments.

On 6 November 2023, Nattakan was arrested in Bangkok. TLHR said that police summonses were sent to a house he no longer lived in and he was not aware he had been summoned. He was taken to Phatthalung the next day. The police then informed him of the charges. The Phatthalung Provincial Court subsequently denied him bail on the grounds that the charges carry a high penalty and because he does not have a permanent residence and is likely to repeat his offence. He was detained for 84 days and was released on 1 February 2024 after the public prosecutor did not indict him within the time limit allowed for detention pending investigation.

In mid-2026, Nattakan was unable to get a new identification card. He then learned of an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the Phatthalung Provincial Court on 1 August 2025. TLHR speculates that Nattakan had been summoned for an appointment related to the case, but was not aware of any summons. He contacted the inquiry officer in Phatthalung and made an appointment to turn himself into the police on 10 November.

eng editor 1 Thu, 2026-11-12 - 15:55

News

Thaksin amnesty petition awaits review

eng editor 1 — Thu, 12 Nov 2026 07:13:08 +0000

Thaksin amnesty petition awaits review

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has applied for amnesty under the new Amnesty Act. His lawyer said he is seeking to clear his name to spend his old age out of politics.

Thaksin’s lawyer, Winyat Chatmontree, said Thaksin authorised him to file a petition on his behalf on 8 October through the joint service center of the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office. The petition requested the Committee on Promoting a Peaceful Society to rule whether he is eligible for amnesty under the new amnesty law for political participation, formally called the Promotion of a Peaceful Society Act. Winyat said Thaksin is seeking to clear his name and that he does not wish to be involved in politics as he is getting older.

Thaksin is seeking amnesty for several corruption and misconduct charges filed against him for the 4-billion-Baht EXIM Bank loan, the two- and three-digit lottery project, the Shin Satellite concession modifications, and the 46-billion-Baht asset seizure. Amnesty would expunge his criminal records, and relieve him from all legal liabilities resulting from previous convictions. On 14 October, Winyat told The Nation that the petition covers cases he described as politically motivated and does not include the royal defamation charge for which Thaksin was acquitted in August 2025 and prosecutors have since appealed. He acknowledged that critics argue Thaksin’s convictions may fall within the law’s exclusions, particularly those covering corruption and misconduct, but stressed that filing a petition does not automatically entitle him to amnesty.

Piyasiri Wattanavrangkul, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, said on 26 October that the Committee on Promoting a Peaceful Society will consider Thaksin’s petition during its meeting in November. As chair of the screening subcommittee, Piyasiri said that he would convene a meeting as soon as possible once the subcommittee received his petition.

Thaksin’s petition drew some criticism, including from Pheu Thai MP Jakrapob Penkair, who argued that Thaksin should delay his petition as he is a politically controversial figure and seeking amnesty may cause problems as it did in the past. The Amnesty Act should be politically neutral, Jakrapob said, and leading figures should wait to seek amnesty. Meanwhile, former Red Shirt leader Nattawut Saikua defended Thaksin’s petition. He said that everyone has a right to apply for amnesty and it would be up to the Committee to decide, noting that Thaksin has completed his prison sentence.

According to Thai Enquirer’s 2 November report, an unofficial assessment given to Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul indicated that Thaksin does not qualify for amnesty as his four convictions are all for corruption and abuse of power. The assessment says that Section 7 of the Act is meant for people who took part in political demonstrations or expressed political opinions and Thaksin is likely to face legal barriers during the screening process as corruption cases are excluded from the Act.

Pheu Thai leader Julapun Amornvivat has denied any deal granting amnesty to Thaksin in exchange for Pheu Thai's support for the Prime Minister and several Bhumjaithai ministers in the upcoming no-confidence vote scheduled for 7 - 11 December. He said that it is not necessary to make such a deal as Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai are stable coalition partners and that the government is not involved in deciding whether to grant amnesty.

Chatchai Bangchuad, Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office and secretary to the Committee on Promoting a Peaceful Society, told The Standard that the Committee will meet next week, but is unlikely to discuss Thaksin’s petition as it has not been screened by the subcommittee.

What the law covers, and what it leaves out

The Peaceful Society Promotion Act took effect on 24 August. It provides amnesty for political assembly and political expression offences committed between 1 January 2005 and 16 July 2025. It excludes corruption and misconduct offences, royal defamation, and other charges involving death or grievous bodily harm, as well as offences against private persons. The Committee on Promoting a Peaceful Society, a nine-person committee chaired by the Prime Minister, decides who qualifies for amnesty.

The exclusion of royal defamation has been one of the law’s most controversial provisions, as many of those charged are young activists from the 2020 pro-democracy movement. Critics of the amnesty law argued that leaving out those charged with royal defamation means the majority of political prisoners and activists facing prosecution are not qualified for amnesty, which limits the law’s ability to heal political divisions.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) said in a 4 November update that courts have dismissed some cases that qualify for amnesty. 9 detainees were released, while at least 5 individuals were allowed to take off their monitoring devices. It noted, however, that the process tends to be slow in cases that are being considered by the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court.

At least 52 people are currently detained on charges relating to protests or political expression. Of this number, 34 are detained for royal defamation, 13 of whom are detained pending trial or appeal. Many detainees have been repeatedly denied bail.

eng editor 1 Thu, 2026-11-12 - 14:13

News

Appeal Court ruling puts Election Commission under renewed legal pressure

eng editor 3 — Thu, 12 Nov 2026 06:25:31 +0000

Appeal Court ruling puts Election Commission under renewed legal pressure

The Appeal Court has ruled that members of the public can directly file criminal lawsuits against Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) officials over alleged malfeasance in the 2024 Senate selection, bypassing the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which normally investigate allegations before cases can proceed to court.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by a Senate candidate Phongsakorn Tangkittrakul against seven Election commissioners and ECT Secretary-General Sawaeng Boonme at the Chon Buri Provincial Court, accusing the eight of malfeasance for allowing the 2024 Senate selection to proceed without transparency and fairness.

The case was later referred to the Appeal Court President to determine whether it was within the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct’s jurisdiction.

The Appeal Court ruling, issued on 6 November, stated that the Senate selection process misappropriated the sovereign power of Thai citizens, who were collectively victimised in the process, leaving them at liberty to bypass the NACC and directly file lawsuits against officials involved with the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct.

The ruling overturned an earlier 5 May decision by the previous President which rejected Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct jurisdiction over the case.

According to Section 235 of the Constitution, a case which involves allegations against individuals holding positions in the independent institutions, including Constitutional Court and the ECT, must first be submitted to the NACC for further investigation. The NACC will then determine whether there are sufficient grounds to refer it on to the Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct.

The Organic Act on Criminal Procedure of Persons Holding Political Positions further stipulates that proceedings should be initiated by the Attorney-General or the NACC commissioners.

The legal framework has been called into question in Thai political circles, as appointments to the independent institutions, including the NACC, must be approved by the Senate in turn.

The current Appeal Court president’s decision therefore marks a significant development for Thailand’s judicial and political landscape.

In response to the ruling, the ECT cited the 2018 Organic Act on the Acquisition of Senators, which states that only Senate Candidates can file a petition with the ECT, and that they must do so within three days of discovering that an alleged wrongdoing has occurred in the selection process.

It further argued that members of the public are not direct victims on the grounds that Senate selection differs from the general election in which the general public is eligible to vote.

The ECT also questioned the jurisdictional authority of the Supreme Court.

Last week, it filed a petition with the Constitutional Court challenging the Supreme Court’s authority to examine Senate candidate qualifications, a move that met with considerable skepticism in Thai legal circles.

Both developments continue the controversy surrounding the allegedly fraudulent Senate selection process, arguably the biggest stain on the ruling Bhumjaithai Party and the ECT.

eng editor 3 Thu, 2026-11-12 - 13:25

News

Activist found not guilty of royal defamation over graduation ceremony three-finger salute

eng editor 1 — Tue, 10 Nov 2026 07:05:17 +0000

Activist found not guilty of royal defamation over graduation ceremony three-finger salute

The Khon Kaen Provincial Court has dismissed a royal defamation charge filed against activist Songpol “Yajai” Sonthirak for flashing the three-finger salute at a graduation ceremony in December 2022.

Songpol was charged with royal defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act for flashing the three-finger “Hunger Games” salute, a well-known resistance symbol used by activists protesting the 2014 military coup and by students in the 2020 pro-democracy movement, after receiving his degree certificate from Princess Sirindhorn, King Vajiralongkorn’s younger sister, during Khon Kaen University’s graduation ceremony on 20 December 2022. He was also charged for an interview with The Isaan Record and another with a Khon Kaen University student activist group. He was indicted in November 2025.

Khon Kaen University reportedly paused its live broadcast of the graduation ceremony while Songpol and subsequent graduates from the Faculty of Law were receiving their certificates, and did not allow comments on the live broadcast after it resumed.

The complaint against him was filed by Kamon Kitkasiwat, leader of a royalist group in Khon Kaen, who was at the time an MP candidate for the royalist Thai Pakdee Party.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) said today (10 November) that the Khon Kaen Provincial Court has dismissed the charge against Songpol. It ruled that, given his behaviour before the ceremony and that he is part of the same activist group as Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, flashing the three-finger salute in front of Princess Sirindhorn can be seen as anti-monarchy, but while it is disrespectful and an insult, it is not defamatory. The princess is also not covered by the royal defamation law, which only covers the King, the Queen, the heir to the throne, and the regent. The court noted that a criminal law should be strictly interpreted and cannot be expanded based on tradition, similar laws, or general legal principles. Expanding the royal defamation law to cover individuals appointed by the King to carry out royal duties on his behalf would mean people face a higher penalty and would be unfair.

Songpol’s lawyer previously petitioned the court to dismiss charges filed under the Computer Crimes Act as these charges are covered by the new Amnesty Act. However, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that his action during the graduation ceremony is a personal action and does not appear to be a political expression or a call for change.

eng editor 1 Tue, 2026-11-10 - 14:05

News

House Speaker rejects petition to proposal to repeal 1976 coup-era order

eng editor 1 — Tue, 10 Nov 2026 02:52:10 +0000

House Speaker rejects petition to proposal to repeal 1976 coup-era order

The House Speaker has rejected a petition initiating a bill to repeal an order made following the military coup of 1976 which increased the penalty for royal defamation.

iLaw reported that the October 6 Memorial Network submitted the petition to the House Speaker on 30 September. On 27 October, House Speaker Sophon Saram of the Bhumjaithai Party rejected the petition, arguing that citizens are not allowed to propose bills that are not related to people’s rights and freedom and this issue is instead a matter of state policy.

The Network said in a Facebook post that the bill, which is backed by over 59,000 people, aims to repeal an order made by the military junta that took power after the 1976 massacre at Thammasat University. It asks the legislature to reconsider an order that increased the penalties for a number of criminal offences, a matter which affects people’s rights and freedom.

The Network argued that penalties for criminal offences are directly related to constitutional rights and freedoms. The Constitution and a 2021 law on bills initiated by citizens requires that a bill be endorsed by at least 10,000 eligible voters before it can be introduced to Parliament. It must also be related in principle to constitutional provisions concerning the people‘s rights and freedoms or the duties of the state; this includes several provisions on the enforcement of criminal law as well as on freedom of expression.

It noted that the 2021 law shows that criminal law is not separate from constitutional freedoms, while the Constitution itself contains provisions controlling the state‘s exercise of its authority in criminal cases. In light of this, setting the penalty for a criminal offence is not solely a matter of state policy but also limits the people’s freedom. When it comes to the penalty for royal defamation, which the order changed from up to 7 years to from 3 to 15 years, the changes to the Criminal Code affect the period of time during which a person‘s freedom may be limited. The change in the penalty is related to proportionality — an important principle in the Constitution. The Network therefore argues that proposing revisions to legislation that increases the prison sentences for criminal offences is about protecting constitutional freedoms and the bill should therefore be eligible for presentation to Parliament.

The Network also noted that previous House Speakers have accepted petitions proposing amendments to the Criminal Code, including one that would have extended the scope of the royal defamation law to cover more individuals.

The Network has called a protest at the parliament complex this evening (10 November) to demand that the House Speaker accept their petition.

The petition to propose the bill was part of the campaign marking the 50th anniversary of the 6 October 1976 Thammasat University Massacre, a violent crackdown by police and right-wing paramilitaries against protesters gathering at Thammasat University and nearby Sanam Luang to protest the return of Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn. The massacre resulted in the death of at least 45 people, some by lynching, and the public mutilation of corpses. That evening, Admiral Sangad Chaloryu ousted the elected government of Seni Pramoj in a military coup and appointed himself head of the National Administrative Reform Council (NARC), the junta which would rule Thailand until 1980.

Within 15 days of the coup, the NARC issued Order 41, which amended the Criminal Code by increasing the penalties for several offences, which included defaming a foreign head of state, insulting a place of worship, flag desecration, defamation, and defamation by publication. It also increased the penalty for royal defamation from up to 7 years to between 3 and 15 years.

eng editor 1 Tue, 2026-11-10 - 09:52

News

ECT challenges Supreme Court’s authority to examine Senate candidate qualifications

eng editor 3 — Mon, 09 Nov 2026 12:11:55 +0000

ECT challenges Supreme Court’s authority to examine Senate candidate qualifications

The Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) has sought a Constitutional Court ruling over the Supreme Court’s authority to examine the qualifications of Senate candidates, amid a controversy over the Senate selection fraud.

The ECT commissioners voted 5-2 to petition the Constitutional Court, asking it to rule whether the Supreme Court had the authority to examine the qualifications of five Senate candidates, two of whom are sitting senators, according to several news outlets.

Three petitions were filed with the Supreme Court by unsuccessful Senate candidates, known as reserve senators. They asked the Court to examine the qualifications of five Senate candidates who had passed the preliminary qualification examination conducted by the ECT. The ECT had judged that these candidates were eligible after an earlier petition filed over their qualifications.

The Supreme Court began reviewing the evidence in October 2025. The Court is expected to conclude the case by the end of this year.

However, the majority of the ECT commissioners claim that by accepting the petitions, the Supreme Court has infringed on the ECT’s authority to oversee the Senate selection process, particularly as these candidates had been officially cleared by the commission.

According to the ECT, the Supreme Court has no authority to initiate on its own the process to revisit the ECT’s final decision.

On 4 November, the ECT filed its petition with the Constitutional Court. The ECT argues that the law narrowly defines the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, and gives it no authority to initiate investigations into electoral fraud, except in cases referred to the Supreme Court by the ECT itself. This includes the case in which the ECT referred to the Court the case of 77 individuals allegedly involved in Senate selection fraud.

The case is not merely a dispute over the Senate candidates’ qualifications, but also an institutional power struggle.

The 2017 Constitution was designed to give to the Senate the power to approve appointments to the Constitutional Court and high-ranking positions in several other independent agencies. There has always been a question of how independent these institutions can be when the Senate has this authority.

4 out of the 7 incumbent Election Commissioners were approved by the current Senate, as were 2 of the 9 current Constitutional Court judges. The remaining 7 judges, who were approved by the military junta, will leave office in 2029, and their successors will also require the Senate’s approval.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is one of only three institutions whose judges are not approved by the Senate. Yet it is being challenged by an institution whose commissioners were approved by the Senate before a tribunal also approved by the Senate.

All eyes are now on how the Constitutional Court will respond.

eng editor 3 Mon, 2026-11-09 - 19:11

News