Cambodia National Heart Party (CNHP) President Siem Pluk and his party logo. FB
The Phnom Penh Municipal Court has summoned two supporters of the Cambodia National Heart Party (CNHP) to a hearing on December 16 in connection with their allegedly fraudulent party registration documents.
On November 16, the Ministry of Interior issued a letter of refusal regarding the registration due to what they claimed were irregular or forged fingerprints, alterations made to some of the national IDs provided and intentionally poor printing quality for the submitted documentation in order to cover up these irregularities.
The party issued a statement saying that it considers this latest summons to be a form of intimidation aimed at demoralising the party’s supporters and that it would degrade the Kingdom’s political environment in a manner they called “obviously worrying”.
According to the two summonses signed by deputy prosecutor Seng Heang, the court requires the presence of CNHP supporters Sim Tham, 61, and Chea An, 62, at a hearing on December 16 to answer questions regarding matters related to the party.
CNHP founder Siem Phluk told The Post on December 13 that the court had previously summoned a large number of the party members in Kampong Thom, Prey Veng and Siem Reap provinces for questioning, but these two members just received their summonses on December 12.
He said both of them will go to court and answer any questions on that date without any hesitation.
“I see it as showing the world that in Cambodia there looms the threat of oppression and political intimidation of anyone with political views that are in opposition to the ruling party,” he said.
Sam Sok Kong, a lawyer defending the CNHP, believes that the municipal court has summoned two supporters in retaliation because Phluk made earlier complaints about the interior ministry for refusal to register the party with the Supreme Court, which has a hearing scheduled on the matter set for December 24.
According to Kong, the municipal court should not be issuing summonses to CNHP members to question them about the case at this time because it is already on the Supreme Court’s docket. He said it was an inappropriate usurpation of the Supreme Court’s prerogative to adjudicate the matter.
