JATUPORN PROMPAN, a key Pheu Thai Party politician and leader of the red-shirt political movement, was yesterday sentenced to a year in jail for defaming former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in a speech he made in 2009.

The Supreme Court imprisoned him without suspension and ordered him to publish an apology to Abhisit in newspapers for seven days.

The country’s highest court overruled two lower courts that had found him not guilty. While addressing about 10,000 red-shirt protesters at Phai Khiew Temple in Bangkok’s Don Muang district in May 2009, Jatuporn accused Abhisit of being a “tyrant who has his hands stained with blood for ordering the killing of people”.

Jatuporn was referring to a claim by red-shirt leaders that a number of anti-government protesters were killed during their confrontation with security forces on a Bangkok street. However, authorities at that time during the tenure of the Abhisit administration maintained that no one was killed.

Abhisit, the leader of the Democrat Party, filed his defamation case against Jatuporn, chairman of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), in June 2009.

The Criminal Court had rejected Abhisit’s case in December 2012, saying that Jatuporn’s comment was tantamount to political retaliation in a democratic system.

Abhisit later took his case to the Appeal Court, which in 2014 upheld the lower court’s ruling and rejected his plea on grounds that Jatuporn had expressed an opinion.

The Supreme Court yesterday said Jatuporn, as a leader of the red shirt group, was involved in a bitter political conflict with Abhisit. Jatuporn’s allegation against the Abhisit in his speech certainly had an impact on the Abhisit, the court ruled.

The court found that the Jatuporn did not make his opinion honestly or criticise the plaintiff in a fair manner. His action was rather libelous.

In addition to the jail term, Jatuporn was ordered to have his written apology published in the Daily News, Thai Post and Matichon newspapers for seven days at his own cost.

The firebrand red-shirt leader had been detained at Bangkok Remand Prison since the Criminal Court in October last year ordered his bail to be revoked. Jatuporn, along with 18 other red-shirt leaders, was charged in 2010 with terrorism.

A court granted him temporary release on the condition that he did not insult or defame others or stoke unrest. But last year, the court ruled that he had violated bail conditions by using “harsh words against others” while talking politics on television.

In January, Jatuporn was granted bail again and released from detention due to a health problem and his “show of remorse” while behind bars, the court said. He was released on Bt600,000 bail on conditions that he does not leave the country without court permission and does not to break his original bail conditions again.

Corrections Department director-general Kobkiat Kasiwiwat said yesterday that Jatuporn would get good care while in detention and would be entitled to medical treatment if he suffered a kidney infection again. “When inmates get ill, they are treated by the medical team under the human rights principle,” he said. The agency will check Jatuporn’s health and produce a criminal record before sending him to jail, Kobkiat said.

He said if the red-shirt leader was sick, the department would ensure he gets medical care but would not take him to an outside hospital.

Jatuporn, 51, was born in Surat Thani. At the age of 12, following his father’s death, he moved to Bangkok’s Wat Bowonniwet Temple, where his brother was then a Buddhist monk. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Ramkhamhaeng University.

In 1996, Jatuporn joined the Palang Dharma Party, which was then led by popular politician Chamlong Srimuang. But he defected to Thaksin Shinawatra’s new Thai Rak Thai Party two years later.

After Thai Rak Thai was dissolved by a court order for vote buying, Jatuporn joined its reincarnation, the People’s Power Party. After it was dissolved, he moved to the Pheu Thai Party, which is considered another proxy of Thaksin.

Jatuporn was elected an MP and became a core leader of the pro-Thaksin UDD. In 2010, shortly after a court ordered Bt36 billion of Thaksin’s assets to be seized, Jatuporn joined other top UDD figures in leading a massive red-shirt protest that seized control of downtown Bangkok and culminated in violence in April and May. The 2010 unrest left more than 90 people dead and some 2,000 others injured. In March 2014, Jatuporn was named the top UDD leader, replacing Thida Thavornseth.

The court cited the facts that the six accused of sedition had already been convicted for invasion of Government House – the seat of the country’s administration – and been punished with a two-year jail term, as its reason for dismissing the sedition case.

The six who were accused of sedition were: former general Chamlong Srimuang, Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipob Thongchai, Suriyasai Katasila, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, and media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul who is serving a jail term in a separate case involving violation of the stock market law.

The court warned the other three leaders – Chaiwat Sinsuwong, Amorn Amornrattananont, Terdpoom Jaidee – in whose cases the determination of penalties was suspended for two years, that their sentence would be reviewed if they repeated their behaviour.

The defendants had denied the charge and were granted bail, except Sondhi.

Known as yellow shirts, they had staged protests against the government of the time, accusing of them being proxies of Thaksin Shinawatra. They marched to several government compounds, including the Interior Ministry, the Election Commission, the Royal Thai Police, and others to put pressure on the government.

They can appeal the verdict within 30 days.

JUST A DAY after a key party figure and red-shirt leader was sent to jail, former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra will today attend the last hearing at the Supreme Court for alleged negligence in her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme – a case in which she could face a jail term.

At today’s hearing, the 17th in this case, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is also expected to announce the date for its judgement.

The political heat has turned up with Jatuporn Prompan, the top red-shirt leader and a key Pheu Thai politician, being sentenced by the Supreme Court yesterday to a one-year imprisonment in a libel case involving former premier Abhisit Vejjajiva.

However, observers viewed that yesterday’s verdict against Jatuporn could discourage Yingluck’s red-shirt supporters from showing up in a great number at today’s final hearing, as had been planned.

The court, today, will also rule on whether to grant a request by Yingluck to seek a Constitutional Court review on her case’s legal validity under the new Constitution, which came into effect in April.

In her last-ditch attempt to delay a high-court judgement, Yingluck pointed out in her petition that Article 235 of the new charter requires the court to base its consideration upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). She said that this contradicted the 1999 law on court procedures, which required the court to mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

During the previous 16 court hearings into the rice-pledging case, a few hundreds of Yingluck supporters would usually show up at the court’s premises, but their number is expected to be higher today due to the significance of the final hearing, prompting Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to urge supporters to abide by the law and respect the judicial branch.

In addition, General Chalermchai Sitthisart, the Army chief, brushed aside allegations that the military had dispatched personnel to monitor the movement of key Pheu Thai Party figures ahead of today’s court hearing.

Chakkawud Triwallop, a red-shirt leader in the northeastern province of Nakhon Ratchasima, said he had received an annonymous call telling him to be low-profile in displaying moral support for the ex-premier so as to avoid worsening the political climate and economy.

Chalermchai said no special orders had been issued Army personnel concerning today’s final court hearing. He said Yingluck’s supporters had a right to show their moral support without breaking the law.

Chalernchai’s estimate was that there would be 300 to 500 people showing up at the high court premises today when Yingluck attends the hearing, adding police will be responsible for law enforcement during the session.

Deputy premier Wissanu Krea-ngam said Yingluck had a right to petition the Consti-tutional Court to review the court procedures in the rice-pledging case in which she has been charged with neglecting her duty as prime minister while implementing the scheme, resulting in corruption and huge loss of taxpayer money.

Wissanu said it was up to the high court to decide whether Yingluck’s petition would be forwarded to the Constitutional Court for a review as sought by the ex-premier under Article 5 of the new charter. A judicial review would lead to a further delay of the high court’s judgement.

Besides Yingluck, the former commerce and deputy commerce ministers of the Yingluck government are also facing similar criminal lawsuits pending in the Supreme Court.

In addition, Yingluck and former Cabinet members are also fighting civil liability lawsuits in which the government is demanding massive compensation for state losses in the rice-pledging scheme.

Meanwhile, Yuttapong Charassa-thien, a former deputy agriculture minister of the previous Yingluck government, yesterday led a group of media representatives to inspect the premises of Kanchana Feedmill Co in Ratchaburi province to verify the firm’s purchase of government-owned rice.

According to Yuttapong, the firm won a Commerce Ministry contract for 38,924 tonnes of rice which came from the previous government’s pledging scheme but that amount of rice was not present at the feedmill firm’s warehouses.

Yuttapong earlier asserted that the government had sold rice suitable for consumption to the feedmill industry at a very low price resulting in bigger losses for the rice-pledging scheme in order to justify its lawsuits against former premier Yingluck. An executive of Kanchana Feedmill said the firm had purchased 38,924 tonnes of rice from the Commerce Ministry and the rice was stored at other warehouses.

He said the rice had already been used in feedmill production.

“Our hearts sink but when we choose to walk this route in the rain, we know we will get wet and cold. We believe we will be acknowledged by society as we fight for democracy and equality, and we do not intend to take revenge,” Nattawut Saikua, secretary-general of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), told Peace TV yesterday after UDD chairman Jatuporn Prompan was sentenced to a year in jail for defaming former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2009.

Nattawut said the UDD was born with a shared political ideology, which meant that individuals were important, but principles were more so.

“The freedom of the UDD leaders is not more important than that of others who have the same ideology. Jatuporn’s freedom has been taken today as has that of our brothers and sisters who also have no freedom,” he said.

Nattawut added that red-shirt supporters’ “hearts were hurt” but they had to persevere and use the pain they felt to continue fighting to the end.

The joint committee comprising 11 members from the NLA, the CDC, and the Election Commission (EC), would convene for the first time next Tuesday. They have 15 days to amend the embattled law to be in line with the Constitution.

The NLA had passed the law last month, but according to the Constitution, relevant agencies can petition against it if they find any clauses to be unconstitutional.

The CDC, responsible for drafting the original bill, had raised five points in the bill that could violate the Constitution.

The CDC said enactment of the bill must take into consideration another organic law concerning reforms required by the new charter. This was so that it could meet the spirit of the charter to make political parties more accountable and participatory.

However, the primary voting system introduced in the bill, which required parties to conduct internal poll in determining constituency candidates, could leave a loophole for committing fraud. The CDC said that it might be against the Constitution, which intends to eliminate all forms of corruption.

It also said that listing of party leaders as first party-list MPs would limit their chance to contest constituencies, thus removing their political rights and violating the charter.

Also, it said that insisting parties have no fewer than 50 members in areas without branches or representatives before primary voting could be held was equivalent to eliminating the chances of parties without so many members. This would affect the charter’s principle of making all voices meaningful in elections.

The CDC said that the organic law might promote inequality between major and small political parties since not all of them could afford to set up branches and hold primary elections. This would potentially violate the charter by being partial to a group.

The organic law on political parties is one of the four priority legislations necessary for organising an election expected to take place next year after years of military ruling.

After the NLA passed the bill last month, it met with strong criticism regarding its practicality, given the new voting system and the limited time.

There are some six points in the bill that the EC has objected to, including the total reset of the current EC. However, it has decided not petition the reset question to the court, as the optics of this could lead some people to conclude that it was fighting for the personal interests of EC members.

Instead, said Election Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn on Thursday, it will petition the court over the constitutionality of two controversial points. The first concerns the removal of the EC’s authority to organise local elections. The second is the removal of the power of EC members to suspend elections if fraud is found.

The petition would not derail the planned election as there is still plenty of time to revise the bill, Somchai added.

The bill is among four organic laws necessary to the coming election, and the first that has passed the National Legislative Assembly (NLA)’s needed endorsement. The NLA endorsed the law early last month.

Jatuporn Prompan, chairman of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, has been handed a one-year jail term for defaming former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva over speeches he had made in 2009.

Kobkiat said if Jutaporn was sick, the department would ensure he gets medical care, but would not take him to an outside hospital.

Jatuporn was ill while under detention in Bangkok Remand Prison related to another case, and received medical treatment until he got well.

When moved, Jatuporn should inform prison officials about his health condition so that he can get proper treatment, Kobkiat suggested.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sentenced Jatuporn to one year in prison without suspension and ordered him to publish apologies to Abhisit in newspapers for seven days.

Abhisit had filed a case in June 2009, accusing Jatuporn, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), of defaming him in front of 10,000 people through loud speakers at Wat Phai Kiew Temple in Don Muang in Bangkok on May 10. Jatuporn had called Abhisit a “tyrant” whose “hands are tainted with blood” who deserved to be sentenced to death for killing people.

The Court of First Instance had rejected the case on December 27, 2012, saying that to comment was tantamount to political retaliation in a democratic system.

Abhisit took his case to the Appeal Court, which upheld the first court’s ruling and rejected his plea saying comments by Jatuporn were honestly made.

The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled the two courts.

Jatuporn  was taken to Bangkok Remand Prison on Thursday morning.

Sirichai resigned as Appeal Court president on Tuesday due to disappointment with what he suggested was unfair treatment.

Suebpong Sripongkul, a spokesman for the Office of the Courts of Justice, said the agency’s decisions and actions regarding Sirichai were in line with existing laws and regulations.

Sirichai announced his resignation as head of the Appeal Court after being demoted to an inactive position. He told a press conference that he had decided to quit after being offered the unprecedented position of adviser to the Supreme Court president, a position he said was created especially for him after he failed to get the promotion.

Previously Sirichai was the most senior candidate for the country’s highest court.

The panel instead nominated the second-most senior candidate to become the next court president and replace the current office holder who is to retire at the end of September.

In response to Sirichai’s allegation of unfair practices by the nomination subcommittee, Suebpong told a press conference at the Criminal Court building yesterday that Sirichai had been allowed to explain himself before the panel and it concluded that he was unsuitable for the top job.

He also said Sirichai had been investigated because he was accused of violating the disciplinary regulations. If the Judicial Committee had failed to set up a fact-finding team to investigate the accusation, they would be deemed to be negligent, he added.

The spokesman said the nomination panel had listened to verbal explanations by Sirichai and testimony from his witnesses, as well as looked into evidence that he had submitted. The subcommittee finally voted 19 to one to not nominate him, he added.

Suebpong said the Judicial Committee, which mainly consists of senior judges, based their decision on a suggestion by the nomination subcommittee. When Sirichai failed to be nominated, the committee’s secretary was required by law to nominate the next senior candidate.

In response to Sirichai’s claim that the post of adviser to the Supreme Court president had been created unlawfully just for him, the spokesman said the law on judicial officials empowered the Judicial Committee to create new positions with specific assignments.

“Our scrutiny has nothing to do with the court case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra. We are doing this because the government seems to be hastily selling rice from its stocks at this time,” Pheu Thai politician Yuthapong Charassathien said.

“Do not view our move as politically motivated. We are just looking for possible irregularities to protect the public interest,” he added.

Yuthapong served as deputy agriculture minister in the government led by Yingluck. He is now head of a Pheu Thai working group scrutinising the post-coup government’s sale of rice.

A lot of the rice in the government stocks was bought at prices far higher than the market price during the tenure of the Pheu Thai-led government.

The case against Yingluck, a key Pheu Thai figure, is being heard by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. A negligence charge stems from her government’s corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme, which was estimated to cause more than Bt500 billion in losses to state coffers.

The court’s last hearing is scheduled for later this month and a verdict is expected within two months.

Yuthapong yesterday called on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who also serves as chairman of the National Rice Policy Committee, to order an investigation into an alleged irregularity involving the auction of government rice.

Pheu Thai politicians have suggested that a lot of the rice was auctioned off as animal feed although its quality was good enough for human consumption, adding that some of the purchased rice would eventually be resold for human consumption.

Yuthapong said an animal feed company that bought 14,035 tonnes of rice classified as low quality had a production capacity of only 11 tonnes a day. “Even though this company produces animal feed non-stop, around the clock, it will take them seven years to use up all the purchased raw materials,” he said.

In another case he highlighted, an animal feed factory in Ratchaburi bought almost 39,000 tonnes of “low quality” rice from the government stock. Judging from its current production capacity, the factory would take 20 years to use all the raw materials, he added.

The Pheu Thai politician claimed that photos had been sent to him anonymously to prove that the Ratchaburi animal feed factory did not store the purchased rice at its warehouse.

He also asked Prayut to issue an order for the warehouse to be examined.

Yuthapong said he would lead media today to inspect the Ratchaburi factory to determine whether the rice bought was stored there.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party politician Warong Dechgitvigrom yesterday urged the government to be strict about checking the quality of rice in its stocks before auctions.

He said that would prevent possible corruption allegations and possible irregularities by state officials.