Twenty-five years into the 21st century, Thailand’s relentless legal machine continues to crush political dissent.

Since the 2020 pro-democracy protests, at least 309 royal defamation cases have been brought against 277 individuals under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.

In these trials, Associate Professor Somchai Preechasilpakul, a legal scholar at Chiang Mai University, has testified as an expert witness in as many as 10 cases. Calling him a “veteran witness” would not be an exaggeration.

Somchai has travelled to give testimony in various courts, including Chiang Mai Court, Phukiao Provincial Court in Chaiyaphum, the Ratchada Criminal Court, Bangkok South Criminal Court and Dusit District Court, in multiple cases at some courts, and only one at others.

Somchai Preechasilpakul

His testimony has played a role in the cases against high-profile activists, including Anon Nampa, Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa, Sopon ‘Get’ Surariddhidhamrong and Supakchaya ‘Nurat’ Chaokuwiang. He has also been listed as a witness in the case of Panusaya ‘Rung’ Sithijirawattanakul, though he has yet to testify in court, as the defendant fled into exile before proceedings could begin.

In an interview with Prachatai, Associate Professor Somchai Preechasilpakul described the justice system as "useless," while urging judicial officers to return to professional principles when handling royal defamation cases. Doing so, Somchai argued, would not only reduce the difficulties Thailand is facing, but also help restore public trust in the judicial system.

Having testified in numerous cases across various courts, what insights have you gained into how Thai courts handle Section 112 trials?

In most of the cases where I was a witness, the defendants or the accused generally acknowledge that they carried out the actions they were accused of, such as expressing opinions on vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic or expressing opinions on the management of royal assets. Most defendants admit that they did say it and express their opinions.

The point that must be contested is whether expressing those opinions, as alleged by the police and prosecutors, constitutes an offense and whether it violates Section 6 of the Constitution.

Section 6 of the Constitution refers to the inviolable status of the King. No person shall expose the King to any accusation or action.

In terms of overall content, most complaints in the cases where I was a witness would begin along the lines that Thailand has a democratic regime with a monarch as head of state, followed by the violation of Section 6 of the Constitution and contravening Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Meanwhile, the defendants would contest that their actions constitute the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, which in a sense is equally a right to freedom according to the Constitution, so it should not constitute a violation of Section 6 or Section 112.

In the cases where I was a witness, most defendants did not use rude language and did not use threatening language but expressed opinions. So I think that a number of cases are open to debate whether they are violations of Section 112 or the exercise of freedom of expression. Some cases may also be violations of the Public Assembly Act or other crimes, but at the core of the most of the issues is Section 112 of the Criminal Code and Section 6 of the Constitution.

In terms of the overall judicial process for Section 112 cases, there are two types of courts. The first type, in the process of investigating witnesses and examining witnesses, a number of courts will allow the opportunity for full examination and discussion. All witnesses and evidence can be brought in for presentation. In the second type, investigating witnesses and examining witnesses in court has many restrictions. For instance, sometimes there are restrictions on audience, denying access to the hearing room. Or in testimony, sometimes witness statements are cut by the court claiming that it is a legal matter that the court already knows – no need for examination.

In one way, it seems that the courts are quite 'cautious' when it comes to allowing the public to attend or discussing evidence. Some evidence is cut, for whatever reason. As a witness, I see inconsistencies. I think that court proceedings should have a standard that at least comes close to what is required for the defendants to fight their cases fully, because the principles of court proceedings are that the accused must be given the opportunity to be able to present as much evidence as possible. And in the cases where I was a witness, it is not like they called 1000 witnesses—they call 5 in all, or no more than 10.

In Section 112 cases, the courts should provide the defendants with the opportunity to fight their cases fully under the same standard, and this should take place in the judicial process in all courts.

Are courts in provinces more open than those in Bangkok?

I think that’s not certain. It can’t be concluded that courts in the provinces are more open than those in Bangkok, because at Chiang Mai Provincial Court, there were initially problems with allowing the public to attend witness examinations in Anon Nampa’s case, before adjustments were later made to better align with the principles by allowing greater public access. In Bangkok, some cases remain under orders for secret trials, which makes it still unclear whether courts in the provinces or in Bangkok are more open.

In Section 112 cases, defendants include protest leaders, celebrities, and ordinary people. Can you see any differences in how the courts handle these cases?

Mostly, I was a witness in cases involving protest leaders, such as those of Anon, Get, and Pai. These are likely conclusions from the Section 112 cases which concern the hearings for protest leaders.

Is there a shortage of expert witnesses at Thai Lawyers for Human Rights.? Why have you been selected to testify in so many Section 112 cases?

I understand that there are two levels to this. First, my involvement as a witness in many Section 112 cases is partly due to the research work I’ve done on the debates about the monarchy in Thailand’s constitutional drafting organizations, which relate to the arguments about the meaning of Section 6 of the Constitution. There are not many legal scholars who study the monarchy. Mostly it is political scientists and historians who study this.

The second point is that I understand that when it comes to Section 112, becoming a witness for the defence can, in a way, make the person who becomes a witness feel quite hesitant. This is understandable. When it involves Section 112, not matter in what way, it can unexpectedly lead to negative consequences. Take, for example, Prof Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee. The big issue turned out to be that she was opposed [as a Constitutional Court candidate] because she had a political attitude which could be problematic. To put it simply, it was because Prof Siripan signed a petition to amend Section 112. People who get involved with Section 112 may simply encounter unimaginable consequences. The power of Section 112 right now can go in any direction unpredictably. Even though we may not be someone who directly expresses our opinions, if we become involved in an academic or any other way, we may still be impacted.

Going back to the witness examination in Anon’s latest case (contempt of court), where you were also a witness, why do you call it the ‘match of the year’?

There are things we can talk about and things we can’t talk about.

In the case where Anon was accused of contempt of court for removing his shirt in protest in court, it was because Anon challenged the judge’s refusal to issue a summons for documents related to the monarchy in a Section 112 case. The court claimed that the summons would violate Section 6 of the Constitution, but Anon argued that it did not violate Section 6 and protested against the court by removing his shirt, leading to the charge of contempt of court.

On that day, Anon and his lawyer mentioned two key pieces of evidence: the court’s CCTV footage and the court official in front of the bench who was present throughout the event. These should have been included in the hearings, but it turns out they were not included at all. On the day I was there, I saw at least three cameras in court. In the end, the footage shown to the defendant and the lawyer was from a camera worn by an official. The question is, why didn’t they use the court’s cameras?

The second key piece of evidence was the court official in front of the bench who was present at the scene from the beginning. Generally, this is considered to carry great weight. It turned out that the court official wasn’t called to testify. This court official works at that court. Why couldn’t they call the court officer to testify? To this day, I am still confused.

The evidence in the accusation that Anon committed contempt of court falls within the scope and authority that the court can control. But why did the court not call for those pieces of evidence? Why didn’t they do it?

As far as I can say, I think this raises our suspicion that there is a problem with the court proceedings. The parties to the case cannot access the evidence, even though it is in the hands of state officials. Present it so we can see it clearly. If Anon supposedly used insulting language against the court, then we will see. If Anon took off his shirt, yelled, and jumped onto the bench—then punish Anon. Teach him a lesson. So why didn’t the court present the evidence from the camera and the court officer? What happened?

On that day, Anon and his lawyer told the court that they would give testimony only if the witnesses who were present at the scene and the court’s evidence were entered into the court proceedings. Anon was willing to testify, and I was also willing to travel again to be a witness at the Ratchada Criminal Court, as long as the court was straightforward. But on that day, everything ended with the court stating that the defence did not provide testimony, and that the court would conclude and schedule the ruling of the case.

In cases like this, I think it creates the impropriety that the justice process seems mysterious and complicated. If they made it straightforward, it would be better and would make people feel more confident in the justice system. I think that the court can’t build trust among the public. It is a problem. In this case, the court could, in fact, build trust—but why didn’t they?

Actually, there were several complaints from the judge during the trial, but I cannot speak about them because I can't confirm them. However, if anyone who was present during the proceedings heard all the judge's complaints in the case, they would be fully aware that this case contains hidden complexities.

What do you think the court's attempts to make Section 112 trials seem stealthy reflect?

I think this is not just an issue with the court alone, but a problem with the justice system as a whole. The officials within the justice system are not performing their duties as straightforwardly as they should.

Let me give the example of Nurat, who was accused of dressing similarly to HRH Princess Chulabhorn and was charged under Section 112. If you ask me, under Section 112, the people who are protected include only the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent, or the Regent. Any lawyer, no matter how he reads it, will know that Princess Chulabhorn is not included in this category. The question is, how could the police file a charge? The prosecutor also issued a prosecution order. Fortunately, in this case, the court ruled that HRH Princess Chulabhorn is not the Heir Apparent.

The Section 112 case of Ms. Nurat and many other cases reflect that the Thai justice system lacks independence, starting from the police stage, the prosecution stage, and in some cases, even up to the court. There are certain forces or powers at the helm that prevent those within the justice system from being able to carry out their duties straightforwardly. This is a major issue.

Section 112 has dragged the Thai justice system into a mess like never before. Section 112 is a law that makes the Thai justice process look really useless. Many of the issues I testified about were not complex. But it turned out that the police put together a case, the prosecutor ordered the charges, and in some cases, the court delivered decisions that left us bewildered. To be fair, it’s not just the courts but the entire justice system has hidden problems.

After your deep experience as a witness in Section 112 cases, do you have anything to say to those in the justice system?

When my students pass the exams to become police officers, prosecutors, or judges, I never congratulate them, because merely obtaining a position is not something to celebrate. It would only be worth celebrating when those who become police officers, prosecutors, or judges carry out their duties straightforwardly, in line with professional principles, and with knowledge. The circumstances of Thai society have deteriorated today partly because the personnel in the justice system have not stood firm.

There’s no need to side with the youth or anyone who comes out to protest, but we must adhere to professional principles.

The demand I make for the personnel in the justice system is not much at all. I just ask them to ‘stick to professional principles’. At the very least, they should address issues with professional principles and knowledge. This will significantly reduce the difficulties we are facing in Thai society right now. A great number of cases do not need to go to court. It’s not just about saying, when something happens, let us prove it in court. Some people lose their time, or they are not granted bail and end up in jail. I just ask those who study law to act in line with the knowledge and professional principles they have learned. Just by doing this, the problem of political conflicts will be significantly reduced, and a great number of people won’t have to waste time going to court, worrying what the outcome will be.