This would include the case of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s Ratchadapisek land deal, in which the court had already handed down a sentence of two years in prison.

“That case [the Ratchadapisek land deal] was already over. The new procedures in the new legislation cannot apply to cases the court has already settled,” the law professor told The Nation.

This is because old cases that have proceeded and concluded under previous laws are covered by previous law and not under the new law, said Udom.

Article 24/1 paragraph three of the new law stipulates that in the event that final judgement is delivered in a case, but the defendant has fled the country, he or she would still be subject to punishment. Exemptions from such punishment for those having fled the country following the criminal code’s Article 98 are waived.

Udom, however, insisted that the cases with final ruling would not be subject to implementation of this new law.

Ongoing trials, however, would be conducted under the new law when it comes into effect, Udom said.

Advocates of the bill argue that in order to bring powerful politicians to justice, they should be exempt from the usual practice of forbidding trials in absentia and allowing a statute of limitations for crimes.

But political scientist Chamnan Chanruang cautioned that legislation targeting particular people or careers without taking into consideration the universal principle would undermine the majesty of the law.

“Legislation must be based on some principles of standards. If done arbitrarily, people will have no confidence in it,” Chamnan said.

He also wondered whether the new legislation is prejudiced against politicians.

Powerful people in other fields such as in state and business sectors were also susceptible to abuse of power, he explained. It was unfair that one specific law targets one particular profession, the scholar said.