The move is to express solidarity with Thai activists opposed to the military-backed regime.

The five young activists, identified as Cat, Chris, Austin, Jay, and Effy from Australia, England, Canada, Malaysia, and Vietnam respectively, visited Pai at Khon Kaen Central Prison on Friday.

Pai has been detained since December for sharing a BBC article deemed insulting to the monarchy on Facebook. His bail requests have been rejected more than 10 times since.

Despite months of detention, Pai remained in good spirit and told his international friends, with one of his fists up in the air, to encourage young people everywhere to carry on their struggle for freedom and democracy.

The five international activists would share their experience of meeting with Pai and other political prisoners in their languages to spread the word about the situation in Thailand, according to the New Democracy Movement Facebook page.

In its Facebook post, the anti-junta group also insisted it would continue to fight until justice and freedom are restored.

ONGOING CASES against politicians will be covered by newly approved legislation on the procedure for criminal cases against politicians when it comes into effect, a drafter of the law said yesterday.

This new law, however, will not affect cases in which courts have already issued verdicts, he added.

Udom Rathamarit, a constitution drafter who also sat on the committee vetting the organic law, confirmed yesterday that the new law had no impact on cases already concluded. These included one against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra stemming from his then-wife’s purchase of a coveted land plot in the Ratchadaphisek area from a state agency.

After hearing the case in 2008, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders sentenced Thaksin to two years in prison for abuse of power.

“That case has already been decided. The procedures in the new legislation cannot apply to cases that the court has already settled,” the law professor told The Nation.

High-profile cases are under way at the court against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom from the Pheu Thai Party.

The bill was approved almost unanimously 176-0 by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) on Thursday.

Judges have expressed concern over the clause that allows trials in the absence of fugitive defendants. Atikom Intarabhuti, secretary-general of the Courts of Justice who is a member of the committee vetting the draft law, said trials in absentia are against a universal principle and international practice.

Deputy Attorney-General Khemchai Chutiwong said yesterday that the law could be applied retroactively to existing cases but with exemptions on criminal punishment.

As the new legislation is an outline of how cases will proceed, it is automatically applicable to all cases, including those occurring before the bill’s enactment, Khemchai said.

Only stipulations on criminal punishments will not be made retroactive, he said.

Khemchai said that while attorneys will not be involved much with the new legal process, it should help speed up the prosecution of politicians involved in wrongdoing, given that they are politically appointed and take office very quickly.

He said this would not create a double standard in how politicians are treated compared with civil servants and the private sector with regard to corruption. The existing justice system already punishes anyone committing corruption, he explained, with the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders already in place to rule on wrongdoings by politicians.

“Politicians often have a huge impact on society. They also come and go fast, so we need this bill in place,” he said. “Civil servants and the private sector, on the other hand, often commit less serious graft so they can be prosecuted under the normal process.”

Asked if this standard would apply in the case of fugitive ex-PM Thaksin, Khemchai replied: “Possibly yes. However, the law is aimed at future use and does not target anyone specifically.”

National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Wallop Tang-kananurak yesterday sought clarification on the draft bill on criminal cases against political office holders being binding on cases in the “judicial process”.

While Article 67 in the bill’s provisional clause says the new law will not affect cases that are already in the judicial process, Wallop said it is still not clear what was covered by the term “process”.

Wallop said the law should not apply retroactively to cases concerning former premier Thaksin which have already been ruled on by a court.

He said in his interpretation, the new law would not cover cases already adjudicated, including Thaksin’s, but would cover existing cases on which a final ruling has not been issued.

“The president or the spokesperson of the NLA committee vetting the said draft bill should clarify this point,” Wallop said. “The Constitutional Court could also be approached for clarity on the term ‘process’.”

Meanwhile, Kamnoon Sitthi-samarn, a National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) member, said yesterday that the new legislation would result in “a revolution” in court proceedings on high-profile cases.

There are several clauses that would facilitate court procedures to ensure progress in a case without any needless delays, including absence of the defendants or the statute of limitations.

These are addressed in the bill’s Articles 26, 27, and 24/1’s paragraph one and two.

In addition, those who are sentenced but flee the country would be subject to prosecution under paragraph three of Article 241, Kamnoon added.

As a result, court cases that are on hold would then proceed following this new law, Kamnoon said.

Kamnoon said the cases concerning a former prime minister on the run would proceed under this law. He was referring to Thaksin.

Even in a case where the court has ruled and delivered a final judgement, the convict cannot escape penalties under this law, he added.

Advocates of the bill argued that the special practice of conducting a trial in absentia and suspending the statute of limitations were aimed at bringing powerful politicians to justice.

Political scientist Chamnan Chanruang, however, cautioned yesterday that legislation targeting particular people or professions without taking into consideration the universal principle would undermine the majesty of the law.

“Laws must be based on some principles and standards. If done arbitrarily, people will have no confidence in it,” Chamnan said. He also raised questions about the legislation being prejudiced against politicians.

Powerful people in other fields such as in public and private sectors were also susceptible to abuse of power, he explained. It was unfair that there was a specific law to deal with a particular profession, the scholar said.

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.

There are several clauses that would facilitate the court proceeding with cases rather that being held up or abandoned by the absence of defendants or a statute of limitations as is the case now, Kamnoon posted on his Facebook page today.

These are addressed in the draft bill’s Article 26, 27, and 24/1’s paragraph one and two, Kamnoon noted.

Those fleeing the country to avoid being punished would still be subject to prosecution under Article 241, paragraph three, he added.

As such, court cases now being put on hold due to certain impasses in the court process, would instead proceed following proclamation of this new law, Kamnoon wrote.

Proceedings could continue against former Prime Minister’s on the run, including Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, he pointed.

Even if the court had previously ruled and delivered a final judgement, a politician would not escape the penalties under this law, he added.

As the draft bill stipulates how such cases will be proceeded without the defendants being present, it is thus automatically applicable to all cases that are on hold, including cases before the draft bill’s enactment, Khemchai explained.

Only stipulations on penalties will not be retroactive in these cases, he said.

The draft was deliberated and passed on Thursday by the National Legislative Assembly.

Khemchai said the new law would not have much impact on the work of lawyers, and it would help speed up prosecution of politicians involved in wrongdoings.

He said there was no double standard in dealing with politicians, civil servants and private sectors concerning graft, as there are already separate court procedures in place for politicians, including the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

“Politicians often have a huge impact on society. They also come and go fast hence we need this bill in place,” he said “Civil servants and the private sector, on the other hand, often commit less serious graft so they can be prosecuted through the normal process,”

Asked if this standard will be applied in the case of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Khemchai replied: “Possibly yes. However, the law is aimed at future use and does not target anyone specifically.”

While Article 67 in the bill’s provisional clause says the new law will not affect cases that are already in the judicial process, Wallop said it is still not clear what was covered by the term “process”.

Wallop said, in his view, the law should not apply retroactively to cases concerning former premier Thaksin Shinawatra which have already been already ruled on by a court.

He said in his interpretation, the new law would not cover cases already adjudicated, including Thaksin’s, but would cover existing cases on which a final ruling has not been issued.

“The president or the spokesperson of the NLA committee vetting the said draft bill should clarify this point,” Wallop said “The Constitutional Court could also be approached for clarity on the term ‘process’.

The court upheld a ruling by the Appeal Court in February that handed him the same punishment. At that time, Charnchai sought to be released on bail of Bt300,000.

Charnchai had been found by the Appeal Court to have violated Criminal Code Articles 144 and 167 regarding bribing government officials and judges in exchange for being spared from legal action.

A lower court’s ruling in 2014 said the defendant’s deed severely abused the justice system. He was handed a three year imprisonment term before he sought to appeal the case.

The ruling followed testimony given by an eyewitness – then-Constitutional Court judge Krairerk Kasemsan – who said in 2013 that Charnchai had visited him between October 16 and 22, 2006, and had offered him a bribe of Bt15 million to Bt30 million to help with the party’s dissolution case.

The Constitutional Court in 2006 heard the case in which Thai Rak Thai was accused of electoral fraud, a charge punishable by dissolution.

Charnchai had denied the charge, saying that the mention of a bribe was only a joke as he had visited the judge only to invite him to a reunion party of Thammasat University alumni. They were former classmates at the university’s Faculty of Law.

Apart from Krairerk, three judges and former judges also gave testimony.

After the Supreme Court verdict, the ex-police officer was taken to Khlong Prem Central Prison to start serving his jail term.

Somchai said the first two options to remove commissioners involve petitions from either the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) or the Prime Minister.

In addition, Somchai added, Section 210 of the Constitution would allow the Constitutional Court to take up the case, although it has not yet come into effect. Lastly, the petition to the Constitutional Court could also be made by the Ombudsman, but only after it was promulgated, Somchai said, citing Section 231 of the Constitution.

The comment came after NLA whip spokesman Jate said that there were only two ways to petition against the controversial organic law. One route would involve a petition by the NLA, which was unlikely to happen because the NLA itself voted twice in favour of the bill, Jate said.

Following the NLA’s approval, the bill, among the four organic laws needฌed for the coming election, will be the fi rst subject to royal endorsement and promulgation.

Following the legal process, the NLA will pass the bill to the Cabinet, which will then send it for royal endorsement before it is published in the Royal Gazette and takes effect.

The bill, drafted by the Constitution Drafting Commission, was deliberatฌed on by the NLA early last month. The NLA’s lawvetting committee had made revisions to the draft, including proposing total replacement of curฌrent EC members. The revised bill was then endorsed by the NLA in its secฌond and third readings.

Under the process outlined in the new charter, concerned agencies may raise objections on whether clauses in the bill are constitutional or not. The EC had raised six issues that it deemed unconstitutional, including the total reconstitution of the EC, and officialฌly informed the NLA of its objections to the bill. This led to the appointment of a joint law review committee to study the bill.

The committee, however, resolved that the bill was constitutional, sugฌgesting no further revision of the bill was required.

The NLA vote 1940 to endorse the bill, with seven abstentions.

EC president Supachai Somcharoen also attended the NLA meeting yesterday to present the EC’s views. Supachai insisted on the EC’s stance, especially the point conฌcerning the commission’s current term, which would end after promฌulgation of the new EC law. Supachai said the NLA’s lawvetting commitฌtee had made significant changes to the bill’s content that resulted in infringement of the EC’s rights.

The bill, he added, did not adhere to the rule of law, governance and tradition, in addition to being parฌtial.

“We did not fight to protect our interests, but as a lawyer, I must say that this bill is unconstitutional and must be objected to. The EC must proฌtect its integrity, although we know the consequences,” said Supachai, while urging the NLA to consider the points raised.

Pakorn Nilpraphan, member of the joint law review committee, defended the decision made by the review comฌmittee, insisting that the NLA endorse the bill.

He said the bill adhered to the prinฌciple without taking into consideraฌtion anyone’s interests.

Pakorn said that the new charter does not stipulate continuity of current independent agencies’ terms, but instead leaves some room for considฌeration following the need to restrucฌture agencies.

The EC, Pakorn said, was a case in point, and said the bill was not a punฌishment for the agency, as outgoing EC members would be rewarded after they leave office.

EC member Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said the EC would meet and decide next Tuesday whether to petition the Constitutional Court.