Thai Examiner – “Major Setback for Thamanat’s Kla Tham Party in Nakhon Si Thammarat After Former MP Ouster by Top Court”

Supreme Court axes Kla Tham candidate “Big O” over 1999 theft conviction, voiding advance voting and casting doubt on his 2025 by-election win as the party faces fresh turmoil days before Sunday’s hotly contested General Election.

Thursday delivered a sharp blow to coalition partner the Kla Tham Party when one of its candidates in Nakhon Si Thammarat was ruled ineligible and struck from the ballot. Kongkiat Ketsombat had entered parliament last year after winning a hard fought by-election in the constituency. His name nevertheless appeared on advance voting ballots cast last Sunday. The ruling now throws those votes into doubt, along with the validity of his victory last year. It also exposes the former MP to legal action over his April 2025 by-election win and his subsequent time in the House of Representatives.

The Kla Tham Party, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Agriculture Minister Thamanat Prompow, suffered a major setback on Thursday following a Supreme Court ruling involving one of its candidates. The court dismissed Mr Kongkiat Ketsombat as a candidate after confirming a prior criminal conviction.

The ruling followed a petition from the Election Commission. The case concerned a conviction for nighttime theft dating back to 1999. The court found that the conviction rendered Mr Kongkiat a prohibited person under election law.

Mr Kongkiat, widely known by the nickname “Big O,” had been contesting Constituency 7 in Nakhon Si Thammarat. He had also previously won a by-election in the same southern province in April 2025. The ruling, therefore, extends beyond the current election contest. It opened the way for legal scrutiny of his past election and his time in parliament.

Election commission disqualification and past conviction formed basis of the Supreme Court review

The Election Commission had disqualified Mr Kongkiat on January 22 last. He was convicted in December 1999. The Surat Thani Provincial Court sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and fined him ฿3,000.

According to court documents, the Supreme Court’s Election Division issued its ruling on the afternoon of February 4. The decision related to case numbers LT.SKH 16/2569 and LT.SKH 20/2569. The court reviewed a petition filed by Mr Kongkiat against the Election Commission. The commission had removed his name from the list of approved candidates.

The removal followed the discovery of a final court judgment against him. That judgment was issued by the Surat Thani Provincial Court in criminal case number 3673/2542. The offence was theft committed at night. The case had reached its final conclusion. Under the Constitution and election law, such a conviction bars an individual from standing for election.

The court ruled that Mr Kongkiat possessed prohibited characteristics. These are defined under Section 98(10) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. They are also defined under Section 42(12) of the Organic Act on the Election of Members of Parliament, B.E. 2561. The court held that the Election Commission acted lawfully in removing his candidacy.

Appeal claims and Election Commission objections tested the candidate’s identity and legal eligibility

In his petition, Mr Kongkiat challenged the commission’s decision. He argued that the ruling was incorrect. He claimed that he had only been convicted once, in 2009. That conviction related to a firearms offence. The former MP further argued that he was not the same individual named in the 1999 theft case. He asked the court to revoke the commission’s decision. Therefore, he requested that his name be reinstated as a candidate.

The Election Commission filed a formal objection. It argued that Mr Kongkiat had no legal right to stand as a candidate. The objection cited the final judgment of the Surat Thani Provincial Court.

It stated that the theft conviction remained valid and binding. The commission argued that its decision complied with the law. It requested that the court dismiss the petition.

The Supreme Court reviewed the petition, the objection and the supporting evidence. It examined court records, official documents, and witness testimony. The court also considered evidence obtained from Surat Thani City Police Station. These materials related to criminal case number 1462/2542. That case concerned a theft committed at night.

Court finds sole defendant status proven and rejects claims contradicting final theft judgment record

The court found that Mr Kongkiat was the sole defendant in that case. The indictment named only him as the perpetrator. The case proceeded to a final judgment. The court rejected claims that other individuals were involved. It stated that such claims contradicted the original judgment. The court ruled that these claims lacked sufficient evidentiary weight.

In its written reasoning, the court stated that the evidence submitted by Mr Kongkiat did not undermine the earlier findings. It said the documents clearly identified him as the defendant in the theft case. The court also stated that the Election Commission had provided credible evidence. That evidence confirmed that Mr Kongkiat was the same person convicted in the 1999 case.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that Mr Kongkiat was disqualified from running for election. It upheld the Election Commission’s decision in full. His name was formally removed from the candidate list for Constituency 7. The ruling took immediate effect.

As a result, all advance voting ballots cast for Mr Kongkiat on February 1 were deemed invalid. The ruling also triggered further legal consequences. The court noted that his qualifications were lost as soon as the ruling was final.

Ruling immediately voids advance ballots and strips qualifications, triggering further legal exposure

The decision also raised questions about his earlier election. Mr Kongkiat had won a by-election on April 27, 2025. That election returned him as a Member of Parliament. The court is now considering whether his tenure since that date was lawful. If he was ineligible at the time, his election may be void.

The ruling opens the possibility of criminal charges. These may arise under Section 151 of the election law. That section concerns knowingly running for office while lacking legal qualifications. The offence carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. It also carries a fine ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 baht. The court may also revoke voting rights for up to 20 years.

In addition, authorities may pursue retroactive action related to the April 2025 by-election. The legal position is that Mr Kongkiat may have been ineligible from the outset. If that is confirmed, the election itself may be challenged.

By-election win faces review with possible charges, penalties, repayments and wider party impact

Financial consequences may also follow. If his election is ruled invalid, all benefits received as an MP may be revoked. These include salary, meeting allowances, and other parliamentary privileges. He may also be required to repay compensation. This could include costs associated with the by-election.

The ruling is widely viewed as a political setback for the Kla Tham Party. The party has been seeking to expand its presence in southern Thailand. Nakhon Si Thammarat is a key target area. The decision comes days before the general election scheduled for Sunday.

Kla Tham Party and Deputy Prime Minister Thamanat Prompow at the bull’s eye of Thailand’s political storm

People’s Party candidate in Bangkok arrested on Monday over links to money laundering network

The case has drawn attention due to its timing and scope. It involves constitutional law, election law and criminal history. It also affects both a current election contest and a past parliamentary term. The Supreme Court’s ruling is final and binding.

In the meantime, Deputy Prime Minister Thamanat Prompow has previously said the Kla Tham Party will fight on with candidates contesting 300 constituencies. Last month, the Election Commission also removed Cholsit Kaewyarat, a Kla Tham Party candidate for Constituency 2 in Phuket Province. This was over a media shareholding issue. It was found that Mr Cholsit held a 1% stake in a media firm.

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:

Kla Tham Party and Deputy Prime Minister Thamanat Prompow at the bull’s eye of Thailand’s political storm

Former minister and party leader Sudarat warns of ฿20 billion plot by ‘Scambodia’ to take political power

Cambodian scam centre mess in Thailand threatens to topple interim government sooner rather than later

Deputy Minister of Finance Woraphak bows out after only 33 days amid furore over scammer centre claims

PM asks top minister for explanation as ex official claims Hun Sen started war to protect his scam centre industry

High powered, secretive meeting chaired by PM agrees robust action against Cambodian networks

Thailand and Cambodia face danger from ‘Dragon Head’ the Chinese mafia leader behind the scams

Cambodia lashes out at Anutin’s call to South Korean President Lee Jae-myung as internal interference

Cyber police and Money Laundering agency seek UK and US co-operation targeting Cambodian networks

United States, South Korea and United Kingdom act against Cambodian scam industry with Thai tie-ins

Ben Smith affair & allegations of links to Cambodian scam centres continues to rage in parliament 

Police deny knowledge of scammer links with money whizz Ben Smith. People’s Party MP insists its certainly true

Defiant Rangsiman Rome warns he’s not just fighting a defamation case but for the future of Thailand

Ben Smith money fixer to the elite in Thailand lines up ฿100M defamation case against Rangsiman Rome