The court sentenced the three election commissioners to four years in jail, revoked their voting rights for 10 years and denied them bail before sending them to remand prison pending an appellate review today.

The three presiding judges, Channarong Praneejit, Kamol Kampen and Bandan Dangkhunthod, spent one hour reading their unanimous ruling.

The court found that the EC and its commissioners, Vasana Puemlarp, Prinya Nakchudtree and Virachai Naewboonnien, exceeded their mandate in managing the April 2 election, the repeat vote on April 23 and another one planned for April 29.

At the centre of the case was the EC's decision to register additional candidates after the first round of balloting failed to produce winners in 38 constituencies.

As plaintiff, Democrat Party deputy secretary-general Thaworn Senniam contended the three commissioners failed to uphold impartiality and that their actions favoured the Thai Rak Thai Party.

Preceding the verdict, the court outlined key events relating to the April election which it said shed light on the EC's involvement before the balloting outcome was nullified by the Constitution Court the following month.

The Thai Rak Thai Party was the only major party contesting the poll. It fielded 281 lone candidates in constituencies where small parties could not compete.

After the first round of balloting, 38 lone candidates failed to muster the support of 20 per cent of eligible voters - a requirement for any candidate running unopposed.

The three commissioners then decided to organise the repeat vote in 38 constituencies, mostly located in the South, Phetchaburi and Nonthaburi.

They authorised local electoral offices to register additional candidates. Under their instruction, candidates from the first round of voting were allowed to switch constituencies and run in the repeat vote even though the EC had not endorsed balloting results.

They went ahead with the plan for additional candidates even though the Supreme Court had ruled on April 9 that it was illegal for candidates to switch constituencies before the endorsement of votes in the first round.

The Supreme Court said constituency switching amounted to allowing candidates to run a dual race, which was unconstitutional.

After outlining relevant events, the court examined pertinent provisions of the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the 1998 Election Commission Act.

It found that the three commissioners were not empowered to register additional candidates for the repeat vote.

Candidacy registration for elections and by-elections can only take place according to Article 145 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the election law, it said.

Article 7 of the EC Act prescribes that commissioners should exercise discretion regarding the timing of a repeat vote, but it says nothing about candidacy.

"The three commissioners had the mandate to adjust the timing but not to register new candidates for repeat voting," the court said. The three came to their conclusion on the candidacy issue for the repeat vote after realising that the ruling party could not overcome the 20 per cent rule.

The three commissioners also allowed repeated registrations for candidates in Songkhla after no qualified individuals stepped forward, it said.

"The candidacy registration debacle happened even though the EC had issued a ban on accepting additional candidates for repeat voting," it said. The ban was published in the Royal Gazette on December 26, 2000.

"The consequence of the three commissioners' action was to help the Thai Rak Thai Party overcome the 20 per cent rule, which, in turn, meant the balloting outcome was not a true reflection of the people's will," the court said.

It ruled that the three commissioners had violated articles 24 and 42 of the EC Act and Article 83 of the Criminal Code.

Article 24 says the commissioners must refrain from being unfair to candidates and political parties and Article 42 provides that those convicted of violating Article 24 face a jail term ranging from one to 10 years, a fine of up to Bt200,000 and the revocation of voting rights for 10 years.

The Criminal Code grants the court jurisdiction to punish authorities for malfeasance.

 The court refused to release the three commissioners on bail on the grounds that they could return to organise the new poll in an unfair manner.

"The three commissioners are senior figures who should know that their office is vital for the development of democratic rule," it said. "The three have stubbornly pursued their way even after the people and political parties lost trust in them.

"This court suspects the three of putting their own interests before those of the nation and fears they will inflict more damage if set free," it said.