Bhumjaithai is preparing to sue iLaw after Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and eight others were named in Senate collusion allegations, as the party rejects every claim and the Election Commission faces mounting pressure over its delayed ruling.
The battle over Thailand’s Senate election investigations entered a new phase on Tuesday as the Bhumjaithai Party prepared defamation lawsuits against iLaw director Yingcheep Atchanon after the organisation sought official investigations into Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and eight others. The party says the allegations are baseless and unsupported by evidence, while Anutin has repeatedly denied any involvement, signalling that the widening Senate controversy is heating up as a political and legal fight.
The Bhumjaithai Party is preparing defamation lawsuits against the director of the Internet for People’s Law Project (iLaw) after the organisation named Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and eight others in allegations linked to the Senate election.
The legal action follows iLaw’s submission of documents to the opposition coalition seeking official investigations into nine individuals connected with the government and the Bhumjaithai Party.
Speaking at Bhumjaithai Party headquarters on Tuesday, party-list MP and legal representative Supachai Jaisamut rejected every allegation. He said the claims were false, unsupported and defamatory.
Bhumjaithai prepares lawsuit after iLaw names Anutin and eight others in Senate collusion scandal
He also insisted none of the information presented about the nine individuals was true. As a result, the party has begun preparing legal action against Yingcheep Atchanon, iLaw’s director, and those responsible for the submission.
The dispute centres on documents delivered by Yingcheep to Parit Wacharasindhu. Parit is a party-list MP, deputy leader of the People’s Party and chairman of the opposition parties’ coordinating committee, commonly known as the opposition whip.
The letter asked the opposition to use official authority to investigate nine people. According to iLaw, its investigation uncovered conduct consistent with candidate selection, the distribution of voting slips and the payment of compensation during the recent Senate election. The organisation said those activities occurred at both local and national levels. It argued the findings were consistent with alleged Senate election collusion.
Notably, the submission named Anutin as the first individual. It also listed eight others, including cabinet ministers and figures linked to the Bhumjaithai Party. Supachai dismissed every allegation outright.
Supachai challenges iLaw and says allegations against nine figures amount to defamation
He questioned where Yingcheep had obtained the information. He also challenged whether any of it was accurate. Although iLaw claimed to have gathered evidence through its own investigation, Supachai said no evidence had been produced.
Instead, he argued the accusations rested on unsupported assertions. He maintained every factual claim against the nine individuals was false. Therefore, he said the allegations amounted to criminal defamation.
“The claims are baseless and constitute defamation against all the accused,” Supachai said. He confirmed that Anutin would personally file a defamation lawsuit against Yingcheep.
Likewise, every other individual named in the submission would pursue separate legal proceedings. Supachai said the lawsuits would cover both Yingcheep’s public statements and the contents of the letter submitted to the opposition whip. “Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul will file a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Yingcheep Atchanon,” he said. “All other individuals mentioned in the statement and the letter submitted to the opposition whip will also take legal action against Mr. Yingcheep Atchanon for his actions.”
In response, Supachai again attacked iLaw’s claim that it possessed supporting evidence. He said the organisation’s assertions about investigations and evidence gathering remained completely unsubstantiated.
He also insisted the information presented about each named individual was incorrect. Consequently, he said all those affected would begin legal proceedings over the actions taken on July 21.
Earlier that afternoon, Anutin also rejected the allegations when questioned by reporters at Bhumjaithai Party headquarters. Journalists asked about the iLaw document submitted to the opposition whip.
Anutin dismisses iLaw report as unreliable and denies any involvement in Senate collusion claims
The document identified nine Bhumjaithai-linked politicians in connection with the Senate collusion allegations. Initially, Anutin said he had not yet seen the report. When asked whether the document named Bhumjaithai politicians, he replied: “Really? Everything is proceeding according to the investigation and fact-finding process.”
Reporters then asked whether his own name appeared first on the list. Anutin laughed before answering. “Really? Then that means the information is unreliable,” he said. He immediately added, “I’m not involved.”
Separately, Anutin was questioned again later the same day. Once more, he said he had not yet seen the report. He nevertheless repeated that the investigation and fact-finding process should continue. Reporters again pointed out that his name headed the list. Anutin again laughed before dismissing the document. “I’m not involved in anything,” he said.
The latest controversy comes as the Election Commission faces mounting pressure to finalise its decision on the Senate election case. Earlier, one committee voted to prosecute 229 individuals over the 2024 Senate election. However, that recommendation was later reversed by a newly appointed committee. The change has intensified scrutiny of the commission’s handling of one of Thailand’s most closely watched political investigations.
Meanwhile, the dispute has widened beyond the Election Commission. It now overlaps with an extensive Department of Special Investigation (DSI) probe into alleged money laundering and closed society corruption linked to the Senate election.
Party says every person named will sue as Bhumjaithai insists iLaw produced no evidence
However, that criminal investigation has effectively stalled while prosecutors await the Election Commission’s ruling. According to the material before investigators, the Prosecutor’s Office instructed that progress on the DSI case depends on the commission first reaching its decision. Consequently, both investigations remain closely intertwined as pressure continues to build on the Election Commission to determine the next stage of the Senate election case.
On another front, Supachai said the party viewed the accusations as damaging to the reputations of all nine individuals. He repeatedly described the allegations as unsupported and factually incorrect.
He also argued that iLaw had failed to substantiate its conclusions despite claiming to have conducted an investigation. For that reason, the party believes the dispute should now be settled through the courts.
Opposition and witnesses call for Senate collusion case to go to court as Election Commission decides on huge case
Powerful video evidence raises the stakes for under fire Election Commission in Senate collusion call
In parallel, Bhumjaithai stressed that the legal action would not stop with the Prime Minister. Instead, every individual identified in the submission is expected to file separate proceedings against Yingcheep.
The party maintains there is no evidence linking Anutin or the other eight individuals to Senate election collusion. Anutin has also continued to reject every allegation publicly. Throughout Tuesday, he repeatedly described the information as unreliable before insisting he had no involvement in any activities described in iLaw’s submission.
Join the Thai News forum, follow Thai Examiner on Facebook here
Receive all our stories as they come out on Telegram here
Follow Thai Examiner here
Further reading:
Opposition and People’s Party leader attacks ‘blue regime’ on the 12th anniversary of the 2014 coup
Thammasat University legal scholar and 1992 protest leader warns another coup cannot be ruled out
