February 2025: New Section 112-116 case emerges in the South, Verdicts rendered in at least 10 cases, Right to bail continues to be impeded. Kanun started going on a hunger strike in prison

February 2025 saw the emergence of two new cases related to political expression, both occurring in the South. These include a Section 112 case against Watcharapong Sinso for commenting on a post in the “Royalist Marketplace – Talad Luang” Facebook group, and a Section 116 case against Abdul Afir Seng, a volunteer reporter for ‘Wartani,’ who was detained at a military barracks under Martial Law before being charged for posting messages about the ongoing conflict in the Southern Border Provinces.

Regarding the situation surrounding bail requests in February, lawyers have submitted at least 31 bail applications for inmates, but only three were granted bail: “Theerapong” and Phatthaphon (who are being held pending a Supreme Court ruling), and Watcharapong (who is in custody during the police investigation). However, after the Court denied bail for other inmates, Sirapob “Kanun” Phumpuengphut, one of those detained under Section 112, decided to begin a hunger strike on 21 February 2025.

Meanwhile, courts at various levels have begun delivering verdicts in Section 112 cases, with four verdicts issued. Only one case was dismissed, while the others resulted in convictions. However, there was a noticeable trend regarding the suspension of sentences, with some defendants granted suspended sentences while others were not. In a Section 116 case, a verdict was delivered convicting the defendant as charged.

It is important to note that in Section 112 and 116 cases decided by lower courts in the provinces, including those in regional appellate courts, where no sentence suspension was granted, the lower courts themselves have the authority to grant bail without needing to refer the case to higher courts. This has allowed several defendants to receive bail while awaiting trial in the appellate or Supreme Court.

As for cases under the Emergency Decree, rulings were issued in three cases, with outcomes ranging from acquittals to convictions. In one case involving contempt of court, the defendant was convicted, while in another case related to possession of explosive materials, a verdict was also delivered.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights data, from the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 until 28 February 2025, at least 1,962 individuals have been charged and/or prosecuted for participating in public assemblies or expressing their political opinions in at least 1,315 cases. Compared to January 2025, there have been two additional cases.

Altogether, there have been at least 4.027 cases against individuals, although some of them have been charged for multiple offenses.

Prosecution statistics in key offences;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 278 individuals in 310 cases (Of this, at least 167 cases stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.)

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code, at least 155 individuals in 54 cases

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 674 cases

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 182 individuals in 100 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 210 individuals in 233 cases

6. Contempt of court, at least 44 individuals in 26 cases, and insult of the court, at least 37 individuals in 11 cases

Of 1,315 cases, 676 cases have reached their final verdicts (although some cases remain outstanding, since certain defendants decided to appeal the verdicts, while others have not).

Prosecution trend in February 2025 and key events;

Rising Number of Cases in the South: One Individual Arrested for Violating Section 112 and Transferred from Pathumthani to Phatthalung for Legal Proceedings, While Wartani’s Volunteer Reporter Detained at Military Barracks and Charged with Violating Section 116.

Last month, two additional cases were reported, both taking place in the South. In the first case, Section 112 charges were still being pursued against a member of the public, with an arrest warrant issued and the having to travel a significant distance to face the charges.

On 25 February 2025, Watcharapong Sinso, a 30-year-old citizen, was arrested at his residence in Pathumthani Province under an arrest warrant issued by the Phatthalung Provincial Court for Section 112 and the Computer Crime Act. The charges were related to his comment under a portrait of King Rama X in the “Royalist Marketplace – Talad Luang” Facebook group on 5 January 2022. He was taken to Muang Pathumthani Police Station to prepare an arrest memo before being transferred to Muang Phatthalung Police Station, the local station responsible for the case, where he was interrogated without the presence of his lawyer. He was later detained during further questioning at Phatthalung Central Prison and was eventually granted bail.

Upon further scrutiny, it was discovered that the case was reported to the police by ‘Songchai Niemhom,’ President of the People’s Protection of the King group. The remote nature of these legal proceedings causes the accused or defendant, who often have to travel long distances from their hometowns or residences, to waste considerable time and money in fighting the case.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights found that there have been no fewer than 33 cases involving Section 112 and 116 reported in distant regions, especially in the South. These cases are primarily initiated by the ultraroyalist group, which seeks to prosecute individuals who express opinions about the monarchy on social media. The People’s Protection of the King group alone has filed at least 15 such cases.

In addition, it was reported that on 11 February 2025, “Abdul Afir Seng,” a volunteer journalist for ‘Wartani,’ was taken from his residence in Pattani Province to the Ingkhayuthboriharn Military Camp in Nong Chik District, Pattani, by military officers, citing the authority of Martial Law, which remains in effect in the three southern border provinces.

On the same day, the Facebook page of the Internal Security Operations Command Region 4 Forward (ISOC Region 4 Forward) issued a statement explaining the detention of Abdul Afir, noting that he was taken to provide information deemed useful for a case involving the Computer Crime Act.

After completing his 7-day detention under Martial Law on 18 February 2025, he was handed over to the police for further legal proceedings on charges of “sedition” under Section 116 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act. The charges stemmed from his posts regarding the ongoing conflict in the southern border provinces. He was then brought before the court for a hearing, where the Pattani Provincial Court granted him bail.

The practice of detaining individuals under Martial Law and charging them under Section 116 in the three southern border provinces—where cases have been rising—remains a significant issue that requires continued monitoring.

Rulings made in four more 112 cases, with only one case dismissed and three cases with guilty verdicts

Regarding the Section 112 verdict situation over the past month, rulings have been issued in at least four cases, including one case in the Lower Court, two cases in the Court of Appeals, and one case in the Supreme Court, with only one case being dismissed. Additionally, in all the cases, the courts found the defendants guilty, with decisions varying between suspended and unsuspended sentences.

Among these, one case involved the defendant, “Fah” Promsorn, who pled guilty (the same case as “Poon” Thanapat, where Poon denied the charges and contested the case) in relation to his speech at the #RatsadonWishingToRepealSection112 rally on 31 October 2021. The South Bangkok Criminal Court sentenced the defendant to a total of seven years in prison and a fine of 30,000 baht. However, due to his guilty plea, the sentences were reduced by half for each charge, resulting in a sentence of three years and six months in prison, and a fine of 15,000 baht. The prison sentence was suspended for a period of three years.

As for the cases where the defendants denied and contested the charges, there were four in total, including the case against “Poon” Thanapat (the same case as “Fah” Promsorn, in which Fah pled guilty). The court accepted the prosecution’s evidence, which showed that Poon’s speeches damaged the reputation of King Rama X. He was accused of appropriating public property for his own use and acting above the Constitution. The court sentenced the defendant to a total of seven years in prison. However, because the defendant provided useful information, the sentence was reduced by one-third for each charge, resulting in a sentence of four years and eight months in prison, along with a fine of 15,000 baht. The prison sentence was suspended for three years.

Next is the case against “Fluke” Kittipol, who held up a sign reading “Having nothing to eat in the reign of King Rama X.” The Court of Appeal Region 3 upheld the previous verdict and dismissed the case, ruling that the message did not amount to defamation of the monarchy. It was considered an act of expression, a way to draw attention to the fact that the defendant had nothing to eat at the time of the incident. The court found that the message was not related to King Rama X’s governance or any claim that his rule caused people to suffer from hunger and lack of food.

In the case against Nutchanon Pairoj, who was accused of publishing a “red-covered book” containing speeches from the rally, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court had previously dismissed the case. However, last month, the Court of Appeal Region 1 overturned the decision, stating that the defendant must have known that the book contained insulting and derogatory messages about the monarchy. The defendant later sat in front of a truck loaded with books, intending to distribute them to the protesters to make them aware of the content of the speeches once again. The court ruled that his actions constituted aiding and promoting the dissemination of insulting and derogatory messages about the monarchy. He was found guilty under Sections 112 and 86, and sentenced to two years in prison, without suspension. Later that same day, he was granted bail pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, with the Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordering the bail without referrals.

Finally, in February, a ruling was made in the case against “Kalaya” (a pseudonym) for posting a total of four Facebook messages (accused of two counts of violations). The Court of Appeal Region 9 upheld the lower court’s verdict, finding her guilty and sentencing her to three years in prison for each count, totaling six years in prison for both counts, without suspension and without granting her bail request. In February, the Narathiwat Provincial Court brought Kalaya in to hear the Supreme Court’s verdict, without prior notice to the defendant and without sending a summons to her defense lawyer.

It was later revealed that the Supreme Court had upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, sentencing her to six years in prison without suspension, finalizing her case. If she serves the full term of her sentence, she will be released in October 2029.

A summary of verdicts in Section 112 cases

February 2025

Court	Case	Verdict
Supreme Court	“Kalaya”, 30Expressing opinion via Facebook in 2021	Verdict upheldSix-year-imprisonmentWithout suspension
Court of Appeal Region 3	Kittiphon or “Fluke”, activist, 22Holding up picture frame with phrase “Having nothing to eat in the reign of King Rama X” while participating in Car Mob in Ubonratchathani, 2021	Verdict upheldAcquitted
South Bangkok Criminal Court	Promson or “Fah” and Thanaphat or “Poon”Making speech during #RatsadonWishingToRepealSection112, on 31 October 2021	Fah sentenced toThree-year-and six-month-imprisonment, and a fine of 15,000 baht, while Poon to four-year-and-eight-month-imprisonment, and a fine of 20,000 baht, Sentences suspended
Court of Appeal Region 1	Nutchanon PairojAccused of being publishers of “red-covered book”	Verdict upheldTwo-year-imprisonmentWithout suspensionGranted bail

As of 5 March 2025, TLHR has found that there are at least 45 people who are still in prison for political expression or political motives. Of these, at least 27 are denied bail while pending appeal/trial (18 convicted in Section 112 cases).

In terms of bail applications for prisoners in the past month, attorneys have applied for bail at least 31 times, with a big lot of application for 16 prisoners submitted on the Valentine’s Day. However, the court dismissed the applications in all cases, reiterating the same reason that: “Due to flight risks, there is no reason to change the previous order.”

Regarding bail applications for political prisoners in February, lawyers submitted at least 31 bail requests, including one large batch for 16 prisoners on Valentine’s Day. However, the court rejected all the applications, citing the same reason in each case: “There is a risk of flight, and no grounds have been provided to change the previous order.”

Similarly, in the case of Arnon Nampa’s bail applications, the court rejected all of his bail requests, even though the applications were submitted alongside the statement from the United Nations experts calling for Thailand to immediately repeal the lèse-majesté law. The statement addresses the issue of prosecution and arbitrary detention under Section 112.

However, it was reported that in February,, three individuals were granted bail: “Theerapong” (pseudonym) and Phatthaphon, who had been detained pending the Supreme Court’s decision on their bail requests in a case where they were accused of throwing a bomb at a police booth at Asoke Montri Intersection during the #Mob11Oct64 rally. After the Court of Appeal sentenced them to two years, four months, and 15 days in prison, the Supreme Court granted bail to both, meaning they were detained for just three days. However, bail was denied for “Peerapong” (pseudonym), another defendant in the case, because he had failed to appear for the verdict reading.

Another individual, Watcharapong Sinso, was granted bail pending investigation in a Section 112 case after being arrested, charged, and detained at Phatthalung Central Prison. The following day, his relatives applied for bail, and the Phatthalung Provincial Court granted it. As a result, Watcharapong was in detention for a total of one night.

Nonetheless, in February, after the court dismissed the bail request, Sirapob “Kanun” Phumpuengphut, one of the Section 112 detainees whose bail application was submitted in mid-February, decided to go on a hunger strike on 21 February. His demands are: (1) to permanently and unconditionally release those accused of political offenses; and (2) to stop weaponizing Section 112 for political purposes. Kanun has been on a hunger strike for at least 13 days (at the time of this article) and was transferred to the Medical Correctional Hospital on 26 February.

Additionally, rulings were made in February in at least six other cases related to public assembly.

For Section 116 (sedition), there was a case against Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa for his participation in the “Where there is a warrant, there is a protest” event in Khon Kaen Province on 10 September 2020. The event aimed to show solidarity with activists who were responding to charges and to reiterate demands for reform of the monarchy. The Khon Kaen Provincial Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years in prison. Due to the defendant’s valuable testimony, the sentence was reduced by one-third, resulting in a prison sentence of two years and eight months without suspension. On the same day, the Khon Kaen Provincial Court granted him bail pending his appeal.

As for “insult of court cases” in February, the South Bangkok Criminal Court brought Ngoenta “Manee” Khamsaen and Jiratchaya “Jinny” Sakulthong from the Central Women Correctional Institution to hear the appeal verdict in their case. This was related to their speeches criticizing the court’s work during an event held to demand the right to bail for “Bung-Bai Por” in front of the Bangkok South Criminal Court on 15 July 2022, without prior notice to their lawyers. It was later learned that the Court of Appeal upheld the previous verdict, sentencing both of them to six months in prison without suspension.

As for cases under the Emergency Decree, rulings were issued in three cases, each with different outcomes. In the #MobMungMing case, which involved five activists as defendants, the Court of Appeal upheld the previous verdict, ruling that their participation in the assembly violated the Emergency Decree’s prohibition on public gatherings. Even though the event took place in an open area, it was still considered a crowded assembly. The court fined each defendant 15,150 baht.

In the case of the #Mob11AugustHuntingDownTyrants rally at the Victory Monument in 2021, involving seven individuals, the Lower Court initially convicted all defendants for violating the Emergency Decree, sentencing them to one year in prison and a 20,000-baht fine each, with a three-year suspended sentence. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals overturned this judgment, finding that only “Auntie Pao” (Defendant No. 1) was guilty of violating the Emergency Decree. However, considering the relatively minor nature of the offense, the sentence was revised to a 1,000-baht fine. As for the other six defendants, the prosecution failed to present any witnesses to confirm the exact duration of their participation in the rally, their conduct, or to prove they were leaders of the protest. As a result, all charges against them were dismissed.

In another case related to the #Mob17AugustHuntingDownTyrants rally at Ratchaprasong Intersection in 2021, Waranya Sae Ngo and Seetap (pseudonyms) were the defendants. The court dismissed the case against Seetap, ruling that the prosecution’s witnesses could not establish that Seetap had thrown colored bags. The action could not be attributed to the collective behavior of all participants, nor was it proven that Seetap contributed to public disturbances. However, Waranya was convicted of violating the Emergency Decree and sentenced to two months in prison with a 10,000-baht fine. The prison sentence was suspended for one year, as witnesses testified to seeing Waranya throwing an object at the Royal Thai Police sign.

Regarding a case involving explosives, a ruling was issued last month for “Theerapong,” “Peerapong,” and “Phatthaphon,” who were accused of jointly throwing ping-pong bombs at a traffic light control box of the Royal Thai Police at Asoke Montri Intersection in 2021. The Court of Appeals reduced the sentences for all three defendants. Theerapong and Peerapong were each sentenced to two years, four months, and 15 days in prison, along with a fine of 666.66 baht. Phatthaphon received a sentence of three years, six months, and 15 days in prison, with a 1,000-baht fine. None of the sentences were suspended. Later, only Phatthaphon was denied bail pending an appeal in the Supreme Court. As a result, he is currently being held at the Bangkok Remand Prison.

Public prosecutors are proceeding with the prosecution of two cases under Section 112 and the Public Assembly Act

In February, another Section 112 case was filed with the Criminal Court against “Pui” (a pseudonym), a 41-year-old individual, for a comment made under a post in the “Royalist Marketplace-Talad Luang” Facebook group. The comment, which urged people to greet the royal family members on November 19, 2021, led to charges being brought against Pui. The court, however, granted bail pending trial.

Additionally, a case under the Public Assembly Act was filed against five activists at the Dusit District Court. The defendants—“Sainam” Noppasin, “Oil” Sittichai, “Gap” Jirapas, “Bang-urn,” and Somchai Khamna—were charged with participating in a public assembly within 150 meters of the Grand Palace. They were accused of riding motorcycles while waving flags with messages calling for the repeal of Section 112, along with slogans such as #SaveYok, “Free Our Friends,” and an anarchist symbol, near Wat Phra Kaew and Ratchadamnoen Avenue on May 9, 2023.

The ongoing situation regarding lawsuits stemming from protests between 2020 and 2022, particularly those filed under the Emergency Decree during the COVID-19 period, continues to be a significant issue and remains one to watch closely.

ข่าวหรือบทความที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

admin

TLHR

TLHR