Bangkok: Nantana Nantawaropas, a Senator, voiced her frustration after the Senate Ethics Committee declined to hear from three witnesses she brought forward in a case concerning allegations of a senator selling pork. Meanwhile, Ananchai Chaidej, a lawyer involved in the case, threatened to take the matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) with a stern warning that the truth will soon surface.

According to Thai News Agency, Ms. Nantana expressed her dissatisfaction after leaving the Senate Ethics Committee meeting, where an ethics complaint was filed against her concerning her debate over the involvement of a “pork seller” in the Senate Political Development Committee. She had organized four witnesses to testify: Dr. Prayut Prasertsena, lawyer Ananchai Chaidej, Associate Professor Dr. Olar Thinbangtiew, and Professor Sirote Klampaiboon. Despite prior notice for testimony, the Ethics Committee decided against hearing the witnesses, which Ms. Nantana deemed unjust. She highlighted a clash of scheduling with her defamation court appearance, a matter also related to the Ethics Committee’s considerations, and her involvement in a constitutional amendment motion.

Mr. Ananchai, acting as Ms. Nantana’s attorney, outlined his involvement in a related court case against Ms. Daeng Kongma. He recounted Ms. Daeng’s courtroom acknowledgment of her pride in being a pork seller, a profession she held in high regard. This pride allowed for criticism, as she viewed the title “Pork Seller” as honorable. Notably, Ms. Daeng had never engaged in politics before and was serving as a senator for the first time, making her career as a pork seller a factual claim rather than an insult. Mr. Ananchai presented these details to the Ethics Committee, questioning their reluctance to engage. He challenged the committee, asserting he would bring the issue before the NACC for resolution.

Mr. Ananchai emphasized his determination, declaring his readiness to confront the matter head-on at the NACC. He questioned the Ethics Committee’s intentions and warned of impending revelations, insisting on his adherence to legal principles as a lawyer. His statement concluded with a commitment to transparency and accountability in handling the case.