January 2026: The Supreme Court sentenced “Busbas” to 46 years under Section 112. After four years, the public prosecutor still issued an indictment in the Roi-Et youths’ Car Mob case.

In December 2025, there was one additional political case related to four Thammasat University students. All have acknowledged their charges for violating Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act, stemming from them allegedly holding up a banner parodying politics at Thammasat University Rangsit Campus.

Furthermore, “Fah” Phromsorn and Direk were informed of additional charges under Section 14(3) of the Computer Crime Act, after they had been previously charged under Section 112. The charges stemmed from posts and comments made on Facebook. In another case concerning an incident in which the Thalu Fah page published an image of a school sports parade, it was found that one additional person has also been charged under Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code in Trang Province in connection with this case, which is considered the same case as “Poon” Thanaphat’s.

During the past month, verdicts were delivered in at least seven cases, including four cases under Section 112 and two other cases. All six cases resulted in a guilty verdict.

Concerning cases under Section 112, the Supreme Court sentenced “Sompol” to 2 years without suspension from an incident where he threw a red-liquid-filled bag at a royal portrait. In the case against “Justin” Chukiat, the Appeals Court amended the verdict, sentencing the defendant to 3 years in prison without suspension. The case stemmed from an incident where he placed a note in front of the Supreme Court. In the case against “Tack” Sittichoke, the Appeals Court upheld the previous verdict, sentencing the defendant to 2 years and 4 months in prison without suspension. His case stemmed from an incident where he sprayed a liquid substance onto a fire in the area of a royal portrait. In the final case against “Sinthu,” the Court of Appeals Region 9 amended the verdict, increasing the original sentence from 2 years in prison without suspension to 3 years in prison without suspension. “Sinthu’s” case stemmed from a Facebook comment and was a case where the plaintiff filed charges from a remote jurisdiction.

As for the other two cases, the first concerned two protestors from the WeVo guard team, charged for assisting detainees from the #Mob6Mar21 protest. The Appeals Court upheld the Court of First Instance’s initial verdict, sentencing Marut to 6 years and 6 months in prison and Porranut to 4 years and 6 months in prison, both sentences without suspension. In the other case against four automotive industry labor protesters, the Dusit Provincial Court fined the four defendants in accordance with their charges under the Public Assembly Act.

In the past month, additional verdicts were issued in 2 cases. In the case concerning the 2010 political protests, the Supreme Court sentenced Yosvarid Chulom and Suk Pontue to imprisonment. In the two cases against leaders of P-move, the Court issued a guilty verdict under the Public Assembly Act.

Furthermore, public prosecutors did not proceed with prosecution against 3 activists who protested in front of the Myanmar Embassy under Sections 116 (sedition), 209 (secret society), 210 (criminal association) of the Criminal Code. However, public prosecutors indicted the activists under the Public Assembly Act for failing to notify officials of their public assembly. All three confirmed they have denied these charges and will continue fighting the legal battle.

Of the seven cases, four resulted in unsuspended prison sentences: Nattapon’s Section 112 case, in which the Appeals Court sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment; Busbas’ Section 112 case, in which the Supreme Court sentenced him to 46 years’ imprisonment; “Jae Pocky’s” case, in which the Court of First Instance sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment; and “Tonpai’s” case, in which the Court of First Instance sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.

As for the remaining cases, two of the sentences included imprisonment and a fine. The first was the case against “Pa Jame” for violating the Emergency Decree and other charges, stemming from the #Mob6Oct21 protest at the Din Daeng Intersection. The court sentenced him to 1 year in prison without suspension and a 2,500-baht fine. The second was the case against Aphisit Phromrit for participation in the #KampaengpetchWillNotStandThis Car Mob back in 2021. The main charge was for violations of the Emergency Decree. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, sentencing him to two months’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 baht, with the prison sentence suspended for one year.

As for the case against Wantana, arising from an incident in which she confronted General Prayut, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict with a conviction, but suspended the sentence for 2 years.

Meanwhile, a public prosecutor ordered the non-indictment of one Section 112 case involving a member of the public, which concerned a statement about King Rama X made in March 2023.

According to documentation by Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), from the “Free Youth” assembly on 18 July 2020 through 31 January 2026, at least 1,992 individuals have been prosecuted in connection with public assemblies or the expression of political opinions, across a total of 1,342 cases. Compared to December 2026, this represents an increase of one additional case.

In total, there have been at least 4,070 prosecutions when repeat cases are counted.

Prosecution statistics in key offences are as follows;

1. Section 112 (lèse-majesté) of the Criminal Code, at least 285 individuals in 319 cases (Of this, at least 169 cases have stemmed from reports to the police made by members of the public.) (one additional case in the past month)

2. Section 116 (sedition) of the Criminal Code, at least 157 individuals in 57 cases (one additional individual in the past month)

3. Violation of the Emergency Decree, at least 1,466 individuals in 678 cases (one additional case in the past month)

4. Violation of the Public Assembly Act, at least 199 individuals in 109 cases

5. Violation of the Computer Crimes Act, at least 222 individuals in 243 cases (one additional case in the past month)

6. Contempt of court, at least 45 individuals in 27 cases, and insult of the court, at least 37 individuals in 11 cases

Of 1,341 cases, 781 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 January 2026 and key events;

Four Thammasat students charged under Section 112 for holding up a banner parodying politics at Thammasat University

In the past month, four Thammasat students, including “Friend”, “Maimoke”, “Nong Pukpik” (pseudonym) and another student who wishes to not be named, acknowledged their charges for violating Section 112 and the Computer Crimes Act. The charges stem from them allegedly holding up a banner parodying politics at Thammasat University Rangsit Campus, which had been accompanied by a post on the “Independent Group for Political Parody of Thammasat University” Facebook Page at the end of 2025.

Previously, the four defendants received a warrant from the Khlong Luang Police Station at the end of 2025. It was found that Pol.Lt.Col Chalard Hormngern, an investigation officer in Khlong Luang Police Station, was the plaintiff in this case. Prior to the warrant, a Thammasat University Student had received a witness summons from Khlong Luang police Station to meet with investigation officers. All four defendants had never faced prosecution before this case.

In the case of Phromson “Fah” Weerathamcharoen and Direk (surname withheld), they were required to travel to Phatthalung Province last month to acknowledge additional charges. Police have filed an additional charge under Section 14(3) of the Computer Crime Act, after they had previously been charged under Section 112. The charges stemmed from posts and comments made on Facebook on April 23, 2022, criticizing a group that protects the monarchy. In both cases, prosecutors have scheduled to file indictments at the end of February 2026.

In addition, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has received further information regarding the case of “Poon” Thanaphat (surname withheld), an activist charged under Section 116 in Trang Province, stemming from an incident in which the Thalu Fah page published an image of students holding a sign reading “Nation, Religion, People” during a school sports parade. Poon was arrested and charged in 2025. It was also reported that one additional person has also been charged in connection with this case, which is considered the same case as Poon’s.

In both the Phattalung Province and Trang Province cases, the complainant was the leader of the Protect the King group, resulting in logistical burdens for the defendants to continuously travel to fight the legal battle.

The past month also saw an incident where citizens received warrants from Pha Yao Police Station to acknowledge charges of “defamation through advertisements” under Section 328 of the Criminal Code. This was due to the fact that Captain Thamanat Prompow had given Atit Manutsa the power to file charges against citizens who expressed their opinions on Facebook through various formats.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has been following the case against Tharathorn Sarasuk, a citizen from Saraburi Province, and “Ekkalak” (pseudonym), a citizen from Chachoengsao Province. The two defendants went in to acknowledge charges at Pha Yao Police Station. This took place after the superintendent of Pha Yao Police Station issued an order refusing to allow the case to be transferred to the defendants’ home Province, resulting in both of them being forced to travel long distances to fight this case. It is understood that members of the public are still continuously receiving summonses.

The use of defamation law by the politically powerful in the manner shown above—in a way that is against the people’s freedom of expression and through pressing charges remotely from an area where one has political influence—culminates into logistical burdens for defendants and impacts on freedom of expression. The act can be classified as a strategic lawsuit against political participation (SLAPP), which should continue to be monitored.

January 2026: verdicts in four Section 112 cases; the Criminal Court granted bail at the Supreme Court stage for “Sittichoke”

Throughout January 2026, courts delivered rulings in at least seven cases arising from public assembly and political expression. These included four cases under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and two cases under other laws. All seven cases resulted in a guilty verdict.

Of the four Section 112 cases in which verdicts were issued during the month, three were decided by the Court of Appeal and one was by the Supreme Court. The cases are summarized below:

In the case against “Sompol” (pseudonym), he was previously charged for riding a motorbike and throwing a red-liquid-filled bag onto a royal portrait, located in front of a Tesco Lotus Department Store Rangsit Branch. The incident took place on 13 February 2022. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict from the Appeals Court to sentence the defendant to 2 years in prison without suspension, stating that although the action was not considered defamation, it fell under contempt of and a lack of respect for the monarchy. The verdict was read without the defendant present, due to the fact that after the warrant was released, the defendant did not travel to court.

In the case against Chukiat “Justin” Sangwong, he was charged for placing a paper with the text “Trash dumping site, garbage!” on a portrait of King Rama X, located in front of the Supreme Court”. This incident took place during the #Mob20Mar21 protest. The Appeals Court overturned the previous dismissal, where the Court of First Instance cited a lack of evidence to prove the defendant was the perpetrator. The new verdict sentenced the defendant to 3 years in prison without suspension. The verdict was read without the defendant present, due to the fact that after the warrant was released, the defendant did not travel to court.

In the case against Sittichok “Tack” Setthasawet, he was charged for allegedly spraying an oil-like-substance onto a fire in the area at the base of the royal portrait of King Rama X and the Queen, on the median island of Ratchadamnoen Nok Road at the Phan Fa Lilat intersection. The incident took place during the #Mob18July21 protest. The Appeals Court upheld the Court of First Instance’s verdict, sentencing the defendant to 2 years and 4 months in prison without suspension. The Appeals Court believed that the defendant did not assist in extinguishing the flames, but instead caused the flames to burn more intensely. The Appeals Court also recognized the harm caused to the royal portrait. On the same day the verdict was issued, the Criminal Court granted bail pending appeal.

In the case against “Sinthu” (pseudonym), they were charged for their comment on a post on the MalaengtaD page, which featured a photo of King Rama X and the Queen, back in January 2022. Previously, the Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to 2 years in prison without suspension. Later, the Region 9 Appeals Court amended the sentence to a 3-years-suspension period. This is one of the many cases where charges were filed remotely from Pattalung Province, which has a distance of approximately 1,087 kilometers from Sinthu’s hometown Province (Chantaburi). Similarly, the complainant in all of these cases was the leader of the Protect the King Group.

Overall, counting from cases arising since late November 2020 to the present, courts have issued verdicts in at least 206 cases under Section 112.

The court upheld the verdict to imprison 2 WeVo members for allegedly helping a detainee from the #Mob6Mar21 protest; defendants in automotive industry labour protest case given a fine

As for the two cases related to public assembly and political expression in which courts issued verdicts, the details are as follows.

In the case against Porranat and Marut (last name withheld), two members from the We Volunteer (WeVo) group, they were charged for jointly committing an act by any means to help a detained person escape from custody, and jointly resisting and obstructing officials. These charges stem from the two defendants allegedly trying to help a WeVo member who had been detained in a car. The incident took place on 6 March 2021 around the Major Ratchayothin Mall area.

The Appeals Court upheld the verdict from the Court of First Instance, sentencing Marut to 6 years and 6 months in prison and Porranat to 4 years and 6 months. On the same day, the Criminal Court issued an order granting bail pending appeal.

Lastly, in the case against four automotive industry labor protesters—Wirut Namanee, Sunthon Boonyod, Thatchaphong Kaedam, and Suriya Pasawanang—who have been indicted on charges of “organizing a public assembly in a prohibited area and jointly assembling in violation of the order prohibiting gatherings within a 50-meter radius of Government House,” under Section 7 of the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558 (2015). This case stemmed from a protest demanding compensation and remedies for unfair dismissal, held between March 11 and April 1, 2025.

In the scheduled hearing for testimony and evidence examination, all defendants decided to plead guilty due to the burdens faced from prosecution. Some lived in provinces outside of Bangkok and had recently been laid off from work. The Dusit Provincial Court then fined Wirut 10,000 baht, while the other three were each fined 5,000 baht.

The past month also saw verdicts in several interesting cases, including two cases involving leaders of the People’s Movement for a Just Society (P-move), who were charged at the Dusit District Court under the Public Assembly Act, Section 7 (final paragraph). The charges stemmed from assemblies held near Government House to raise demands concerning community issues, similar to the case involving automotive industry labor protesters. These cases arose from protests in February and October 2024.

In both cases, the defendants contested the charges. However, the court ruled in a similar manner in both cases, finding them guilty. The court reasoned that officials had the authority to prohibit the assembly in the area in question, as it was necessary to take security measures into consideration. In both cases, the court sentenced the defendants to 1 month and 15 days in prison, with a 7,500 baht fine and a 2-year suspension period. Lawyers from the Community Resource Centre Foundation are preparing to file for an appeal.

Furthermore, January saw the court issue a verdict in the case against two red-shirt-protesters from the 2010 political protest: Yosvarid Chuklom or “Jeng Dokjik” and “Suksek” or Suk Pontue. The Supreme Court upheld the Appeals’ Court verdict, sentencing Yosvarid to 5 years and 4 months in prison, while Suksek was given a life-sentence. Yosvarid is currently imprisoned at the Bangkok Remand Prison and Suksek at the Klong Prem Central Prison.

Public prosecutors decline to pursue Section 116 and “secret society” charges against three activists, proceed under Public Assembly Act for protest at Myanmar Embassy against Min Aung Hlaing

In January 2026, public prosecutors issued a non-indictment order in the case against Thitima Thongsri, Kita Kerdnak, and Worrakan Panthong on charges under Sections 116 (sedition), 209 (secret society), 210 (criminal association) of the Criminal Code. The charges stemmed from their participation in a protest in front of the Myanmar Embassy on 5 April 2025 against General Min Aung Hlaing.

However, the case has not concluded. The non-indictment order applied only to some charges. Prosecutors have instead indicted the three activists for failing to notify authorities of a public assembly under the Public Assembly Act. This offence is classified as a regulatory offence and has been filed with the Bangkok South Municipal Court.

All three defendants have confirmed that they will plead not guilty and contest the charge. They are preparing a written statement declaring their intention to fight the case.