FORMER PRIME MINISTER Yingluck Shinawatra has again requested the Supreme Court to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on a legal issue involving the case against her of negligence in the management of the rice pledging case, challenging the highest court’s decision to reject her previous petition.

In her latest petition, Yingluck said it was beyond the Supreme Court’s legal authority to reject her request and pointed out that such an act was against the new Constitution, which came into effect in early April.

The Supreme Court last week rejected Yingluck’s request that it seek a Constitutional Court interpretation under the new Constitution of a clause that could affect her case.

The negligence case against the former premier stemmed from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

In turning down Yingluck’s request, the court had said that both the prosecution and the defence had been given sufficient opportunities to bring witnesses during the months of hearings that ended last Friday.

In her previous petition, Yingluck had pointed out that Article 235 of the new charter requires the Supreme Court to base its consideration upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

She said this contradicted the 1999 law on the court’s procedures, which required the court to mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

Yingluck’s lawyers this week filed her request again with the Supreme Court for a Constitutional Court ruling on the matter.

The highest court has accepted the petition for consideration and is expected to make its decision on August 1 when the ex-PM is scheduled to deliver her closing statement on her case.

The Supreme Court has scheduled August 25 to deliver its verdict on the negligence case against Yingluck.

In her latest petition, viewed by critics as a delaying tactic, Yingluck outlined five reasons why her request for a Constitutional Court ruling was valid.

She pointed out that according to Article 5 of the Constitution – the supreme law of the land – provisions of any law, rule or regulation that are contrary to or inconsistent with the charter “shall be unenforceable”.

Also, Yingluck pointed out that the Supreme Court is required under Article 212 of the new charter to forward her request to the Constitutional Court.

The clause states that if any party in a court case objects to a certain provision of law falling under Article 5, and there has been no decision by the Constitutional Court pertaining to the matter, the relevant court shall send its opinion to the Constitutional Court and seek a decision.

“The Supreme Court has no other choice but to seek a decision from the Constitutional Court. Failing to do so would mean failure to follow Article 212 of the Constitution,” Yingluck said in her latest petition.

“The highest court is not empowered by law to reject the defendant’s request. Going by the requirement under Article 212, the court cannot act in another way,” she said.

“The Constitutional Court is the only court empowered by law to accept or reject such a request. No other courts have such power.”

Yingluck’s petition also noted that the Constitutional Court issued new regulations on case procedures in late April to comply with the new charter. The judges who decided to reject her previous petition should better follow the relevant clause in the new Constitution.

“Otherwise, they may end up flouting the legal principle and be found failing to maintain neutrality as a judge,” she said.

It was a difficult decision to make for her to submit another request to the Supreme Court to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on the legal issue.

“I simply would like to appeal for mercy and justice in this case,” she concluded.

A legal expert who asked not to be named said Yingluck could also petition the Constitutional Court directly if she found that her constitutional rights or liberties were violated.

Article 213 of the new charter states, “Any person whose rights or liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are violated, has the right to submit a petition to the Constitutional Court for a decision on whether such an act is contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said he would be in charge of security when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the case against Yingluck.

Thousands of the former PM’s supporters are expected to gather at the courthouse on that day. Authorities have warned of possible legal action if people are mobilised.

Prawit said the government has peacekeeping forces all over the country to take care security, but the court could also make additional requests. He said Yingluck’s supporters could come to Bangkok to give her moral support but it would be better for them to do this from their homes.

Arranging people to support her could be considered as politically motivated and this is prohibited and could risk breaching the law, he added.

Democrat Party politician Warong Dechgitvigrom said on Facebook that Yingluck and her Pheu Thai Party were like intensive care patients at the terminal stage.

“They are doing everything they can, even though that may put their supporters in trouble. Their only goal now is how to survive,” he said.

Earlier on Wednesday, General Prayut told reporters at Government House that the authorities involved, particularly the Finance Ministry, were just in the process of preparing for seizure of Yingluck’s assets. Confiscation of her assets would actually start after the authorities are allowed by court to do so, he said.

However, in her latest Twitter message, Yingluck said what Prayut said was “not true”.

“It is not true what the NCPO leader said that seizure of my asset is only in preparation,” she tweeted, referring to Prayut, who also heads the ruling junta National Council for Peace and Order.

“My bank accounts have already been confiscated and the money in the accounts have been withdrawn,” she added in his message.

The ex-PM tweeted both in Thai and English in the evening, with a link to a news report about what General Prayut said.

Last year, the Finance Ministry issued an executive order seeking a civil liability of Bt35 billion from Yingluck, as compensation for damages caused to the state stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

Prawit said the government has peacekeeping units to take care of security but the court could request additional measures if needed.

Prawit said it was possible that supporters of Yingluck could turn up in large numbers to give her moral support. He, however, added that it would be better for them to do that from home as arranging people to come to support her publicly could be considered politically motivated. This is prohibited and could risk violating the law, he added.

The government yesterday continued to try to dissuade supporters of Yingluck from gathering. Key government figures, including the prime minister himself, warned that gatherings could be deemed a contempt of court and lead to unrest or violence.

Security authorities also threatened to enforce a junta ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically.

Large numbers of Yingluck’s supporters are expected to gather in Bangkok on August 25, when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict in the case against Yingluck.

She has been accused of criminal negligence for failing to end the project despite irregularities.

Yingluck has been accused of criminal negligence for failing to end her government’s rice-pledging scheme despite irregularities. The court has set August 25 as the date to deliver a final verdict on the case, with August 1 set as the date for her to make a statement ahead of the ruling.

Large numbers of Yingluck’s supporters are expected to gather in Bangkok on August 25, and the police have projected a similar gathering on August 1.

Deputy national police chief Srivara Ransibrahmanakul said the situation is under control and there is no need of special law enforcement, such as the use of Article 44.

He said the police have followed up certain groups and found there has not been much movement so far, except on social media.

During the meeting on Wednesday, police decided to enforce the Korakot 52 plan during the statement. The plan provides the police with steps to be taken to control the crowd in the event of unrest, to ensure security at the court

NACC commissioner Supa Piyajitti said on Wednesday that the NACC was investigating the case and should be able to deliver the indictment in the next couple of months.

In May 2015, the NACC accused Yingluck’s Cabinet of approving Bt2 billion in compensation for the victims of 2005-2010 political protests. The accused group comprises Yingluck, four former deputy PMs, 19 ex-ministers and 10 ex-deputy ministers.

Approved in 2011, the compensation was allocated from the central reserved budget to be used in case of emergency and necessity.

The NACC said that the regulations and compensation rates were newly drafted and did not follow the Budget Procedure Act.

Such wrongful negligence caused damage to the national treasury reserves, it said.

Among the two prominent candidates were Gen Wallop Raksanor, the Defence Ministry’s director of policy and planning bureau, and Somkiat Sripasert, current NSC deputy secretary-general.

The name of the successful candidate will not be announced until the Cabinet approves the selection next Tuesday.

The winner will replace current NSC secretary-general Gen Thawip Netniyom, who is due to retire this September.

Wednesday’s meeting was chaired by Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, who refused to speak about the new appointment.

Thawip said after the meeting that the successful candidate will be proposed by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan.

“It’s my responsibility to nominate a candidate. The deputy [Prawit] then takes all candidacies in consideration, and a commander’s decision is final,” said Thawip.

The successful candidate was chosen after discussion, not voting, Thawip added. “All opinions went in the same direction so there was no need to vote,” he said.

As well as the candidacy, the meeting’s agenda also covered a surveillance camera system, national cyber security strategic draft, counter-terrorism strategic draft and intelligence system reform.

She said she wished that her brother, who is on the run from several criminal cases, would survive all of his ordeals.

“Today is your birthday, brother. I don’t have anything to give apart from asking the sacred things to protect you to be safe and to have good health.

“Most of all, I wish you, brother, to be happy because you have passed through a lot of things. I wish all that happened to you will end happily. I love you,” Yingluck posted.

Natthathida Meewangpla, who is also known as “Waen”, 39, was detained by police as she walked out of prison after being granted bail in the case relating to a bombing at the Criminal Court in Bangkok’s Ratchadapisek area.

The lese majeste charge was brought against her by Colonel Wijan Joddaeng, director of the law and human rights department of the Internal Security Operations Command, in March 2015. The allegation was based on the grounds that Natthathida had sent text messages deemed insulting to the monarchy to several chat groups via the LINE messaging app.

A police source said yesterday that during questioning, Natthathida had said the incident had taken place a long time ago and she had forgotten about it.

Natthathida has been in prison for nearly two-and-a-half years after she was arrested for allegedly being involved in the court bombing case, facing charges of terrorism, membership in an unlawful secret society, unlawful possession of military weapons and attempted murder. She was also accused of transferring money to the bombers in the case.

With the help of lawyers and friends, she was freed on bail on Monday to fight the case but immediately rearrested.

Natthathida said she had not known that the messages she had sent in 2015 violated Section 112 of the Criminal Code dealing with lese majeste and did not remember the details.

The messages had been widely shared and forwarded previously, she said.

A police source said she would be tried in a military court.

At the time of the 2010 crackdown, Natthathida was a nursing volunteer in the same tent as six people who were killed at the temple.Red-shirt protesters have accused the military of intentionally shooting into the temple where medical volunteers were helping injured protesters.

THE GOVERNMENT yesterday continued to try to dissuade supporters of former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra from gathering in the capital next month for a Supreme Court verdict in the negligence case against her.

Key government figures warned gatherings could be deemed contempt of court and lead to unrest or violence. Security authorities also threatened to enforce a junta ban on political gatherings if Yingluck’s supporters are judged to be mobilising politically.

Large numbers of Yingluck’s supporters are expected to gather in Bangkok on August 25, when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is scheduled to deliver its verdict in a case stemming from her government’s rice-pledging scheme. She has been accused of criminal negligence for failing to end the project despite irregularities.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday said Yingluck’s supporters could run into legal trouble for contempt of court.

“People acting in contempt of court risk harsh punishment. So don’t stir up things,” Prayut said during his weekly press briefing at Government House.

The penalties for such an offence are one to seven years in prison, a fine of Bt2,000 to Bt14,000, or both.

Prayut said authorities would not obstruct gatherings by Yingluck’s supporters, but arranging vehicles loaded with supporters would be deemed “unacceptable”.

“I want the public to understand that wrongdoers need to be prosecuted. [The gatherings] won’t do any good and they can’t change the rulings,” the prime minister said.

The ruling is expected at about the same time as the junta-formulated “agreement of truth” for reconciliation is released.

Asked yesterday if a ruling against Yingluck would create even deeper political fractures and obstruct reconciliation attempts, Prayut replied: “Reconciliation needs to be justifiable by the legal process. Every case needs to go through the normal process. This government is clear with all cases.”

Meanwhile, Yingluck said yesterday she would continue to fight to prove her innocence. “What I can say is that I’m still strong and ready to fight to prove my innocence,” the ex-premier said on Facebook.

She said moral support from her backers would help bolster her strength and tolerance.

She added that authorities had begun freezing her assets even though the Administrative Court had not ruled on her petition for an injunction.

“The government has chosen to go ahead with it because they think they have the power to do whatever they want, without even waiting on the court’s decision on my injunction request,” Yingluck said.

“This action creates a condition that could influence the Supreme Court decision on the rice case,” she added.

The Department of Legal Execution has moved to freeze 12 of Yingluck’s bank accounts in a civil liability action against her related to the same case. The Finance Ministry, representing the government as the plaintiff, is also pursuing other assets belonging to the ex-premier.

Authorities have issued an executive order for Yingluck to pay Bt35.7 billion in compensation to the state to cover losses stemming from the rice scheme, estimated at Bt500 billion.

In May 2015, one year after leaving office, Yingluck reported to the National Anti-Corruption Commission that she had total assets worth Bt610.8 million, including Bt14.2 million in cash and Bt24.9 million in bank deposits.

Yingluck was yesterday still waiting for an Administrative Court decision on her request for an injunction regarding the freezing of her assets.

The Finance Ministry has continued work to locate Yingluck’s assets in the absence of an injunction, the ministry’s permanent secretary Somchai Sujjapongse said yesterday.

Meanwhile, Interior Minister General Anupong Paochinda yesterday said he had assigned provincial governors to make sure peace and order in the areas under their jurisdiction was assured in the run-up to the Supreme Court verdict.

He added that there had not been any issues of concern so far and authorities had not targeted any local figures in particular.

But some sources said military authorities had been closely monitoring key red-shirt supporters of Yingluck and her Pheu Thai Party.

Anupong also said Yingluck’s supporters should not gather in numbers in Bangkok on the day of the verdict. “I understand what some people think, but we have to put our country first. I hope things will be in order,” he said.

Hundreds of Yingluck’s supporters gathered at the Supreme Court last Friday during the final hearing in the case ahead of the verdict.

Meanwhile, a National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) spokesperson said yesterday that the government would follow guidelines laid out by Prayut, in his capacity as the NCPO head, regarding the matter. “We will mainly adhere to the law to ensure peace and order. We will protect the rights of people who may be affected” by a gathering of Yingluck’s supporters, NCPO spokesman Colonel Winthai Suwaree said.

Army chief General Chalermchai Sitthisart, deputy director of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc), had warned that mobilising people for public gatherings was a violation of the Public Demonstration Act and the NCPO ban on political gatherings of more than four people, Isoc spokesman Colonel Pirawat Sangthong said yesterday.

However, an NCPO source said yesterday a strictly neutral interpretation of gatherings by Yingluck’s supporters could not be viewed as political. “But it could be meant to pressure the court.”

National Security Council secretary-general Thawip Netniyom yesterday said the agency had not taken any special measures ahead of the court ruling because it did not expect any severe incident or unrest.

Pheu Thai politicians yesterday also maintained that there would be not be a coordinated mobilisation of people to support Yingluck.

“Her admirers know that Yingluck is sorrowful that there will be a court verdict on August 25. So they want to give her moral support on their own,” Pheu Thai’s former MP Amnuay Klangpha said.

Sansern said the office’s advertising budget, said to be Bt129 million for June alone, was incorrect as the report included spending by agencies that were not permanent but which fell under the PM’s Office’s wing.

Budgets for agencies such as the Narcotics Control Board, Thai Health Promotion Foundation, Royal Thai Police, Anti-Money Laundering Office and National Anti-Corruption Commission are allocated independently of the PM’s Office, the spokesperson added.

Sansern acknowledged, however, that he did not know the exact advertising budget of the PM’s Office.

He did not elaborate on who had put the report together.