The Election Commission (EC) surprised everyone by dropping three complaints against Move Forward Party (MFP) leader and prime ministerial candidate Pita Limjaroenrat and announcing that it will investigate Mr Pita for a different alleged violation.
The commission said it will be looking into whether Mr Pita applied to be a list-MP candidate despite knowing he may not be eligible to run for a House seat -- a violation of sections 42(3) and 151 of the organic law on the election of MPs.
If found guilty, Mr Pita faces up to 10 years in prison, along with a fine of between 20,000-200,000 baht, and a ban from taking part in elections for up to 20 years.
EC's decision has raised the eyebrows of the public and political observers alike, especially considering the public has been pushing the EC to endorse the results of the May 14 election so lawmakers can initiate the process of selecting a new prime minister.
The public is closely watching the EC since the polls, and many observers suspect the EC's move is intentionally delaying the endorsement of the results as Mr Pita and his party fend off numerous challenges in what can be described as a political obstacle race.
EC's decision to launch an investigation against Mr Pita based on its suspicions has raised questions about the poll agency's motivation.
There have been a few instances where the EC has filed charges against politicians for violating Section 151. Early last year, the EC filed charges against Sira Jenjaka after the Constitutional Court disqualified him as a Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) MP over a past criminal conviction for fraud.
The ruling came after the leader of Seri Ruam Thai Party, Pol Gen Sereepisuth Temeeyaves, petitioned the court to look into whether he knowingly applied to be an MP while knowing he was not qualified to sit in office.
In 2020, the EC also filed a criminal report against Thanatorn Juangroongruangkit, former leader of the now-dissolved Future Forward Party, citing violations of Section 151.
The EC alleged that Mr Thanathorn knowingly applied to be an MP candidate despite holding shares in a media company, a violation of the election law. The action against Mr Thanathorn followed a petition by social activist Srisuwan Janya, although public prosecutors later dismissed the case.
Those two cases differ from Mr Pita's, since the latter was initiated by the EC itself and had nothing to do with petitions from others or court rulings.
The EC decided to launch its own probe after six election commissioners unanimously decided not to accept complaints regarding Mr Pita's supposed breach of media shareholding rules, saying the statute of limitations has lapsed.
There are doubts about the consequences of their latest decision. While the penalties under Section 151 may seem more severe than those associated with rules relating to holding media shares, a criminal case under Section 151 will take much longer, as Mr Pita can contest the case in three courts, whereas the final ruling under the original petitions requires only the Constitutional Court's decision.
This might be a time bomb for Mr Pita, should he be selected as the next prime minister. Therefore, the EC must clearly justify its decision to the public, providing the legal rules or grounds on which it bases its allegations. This is necessary to ensure its neutrality and accountability.
