A red-shirt leader has petitioned the Constitutional Court to dissolve the ruling Bhumjaithai (BJT) Party and the main opposition People’s Party (PP) over a controversial memorandum of agreement (MOA) they co-signed, which enabled the formation of the current coalition government.
Niyom Nopparat, known as “K Samthuis”, a prominent red-shirt activist and supporter of the Pheu Thai Party, has formally asked the Constitutional Court to disband the BJT and the PP.
The petition challenges the legality of the MOA signed between the two parties to form a BJT-led minority government, which Mr Niyom claims may violate Section 49 of the charter concerning attempts to overthrow the democratic system.
Mr Niyom previously submitted the case to the attorney-general, who declined to forward it to the court. Frustrated by the rejection, he opted to file directly with the Constitutional Court.
He cited parliamentary debates by former public health minister Dr Cholnan Srikaew and former justice minister Pol Col Tawee Sodsong, who questioned whether the five-point MOA constituted an unconstitutional power arrangement.
Mr Niyom also criticised the procedural barriers faced by ordinary citizens in filing constitutional complaints, referencing a past ethics case against Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul involving the use of public land for a private airstrip.
That case was dismissed due to procedural requirements to first file with the ombudsman.
On Sept 30, Akkarawat Pongthanachalitkul, a reserve senator, went to the attorney-general to lodge a petition against Mr Anutin and opposition leader Natthaphong Rueangpanyawut for allegedly undermining democracy through the MOA.
The agreement stipulates that Mr Anutin would become prime minister under a minority government, with a commitment to dissolve parliament within four months — a condition critics call a “slave contract” that could destabilise democratic governance.
Mr Akkarawat argued that such arrangements could lead to a weak government unable to balance power, erode public trust, and waste taxpayer funds on premature elections. He also criticised the PP for abandoning its watchdog role, disappointing voters who had supported it since its earlier incarnations as the Future Forward Party and then the Move Forward Party.