She is being prosecuted in connection with the rice-pledging scheme that her administration carried out during her term. Yingluck also referred to remarks made by Prayut on July 25, when he said “if there was no guilt, the case would not have been brought to the court in the first place”.

“The statement by such a powerful person could lead people in society to think in a certain way as though the crime had truly been committed, when the court has not yet handed down a verdict,” she said.

She also pleaded with the court to base its ruling on the law as well as legitimate evidence and witness testimony.

In 2014, Yingluck was accused by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of dereliction of duty for failing to prevent corruption in the controversial rice-pledging scheme, which was her government’s signature policy. The trial against her started in January last year with her closing statements being delivered yesterday.

The court is due to render its ruling on August 25.

Arriving at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders in all-black silk business attire, Yingluck appeared to be in good spirits as she greeted with bright smiles a crowd of her supporters and members of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).

The courtroom where the former prime minister delivered her one-hour closing statement was filled with key Pheu Thai politicians, such as Sudarat Keyuraphan, Chaturon Chaisang, Watana Muangsook, Phumtham Wechayachai and Pichai Niriptapan. UDD leaders Nattawut Saikua and Thida Tojirakarn were also present to show solidarity with Yingluck.

Other supporters and members of the media also filled the courtroom. Yingluck took a seat at the podium in the centre of the room facing the bench and read her closing statement in a firm voice. She raised six major points, arguing that the prosecution was illegitimate and denying allegations against her, while insisting on the valuable contributions the rice-pledging scheme had made and her government’s solid commitment to the people.

She also repeatedly asked the court to consider only the evidence and the report originally brought by the NACC and disregard allegations and evidence accumulated afterwards in a manner that she described as “illegitimate” and “unfair”.

‘Beneficial public policy’

The rice-pledging scheme did not damage the national budget as had been alleged, the former prime minister argued. Rather, it had contributed greatly to the macro-economy, she said, adding that the public policy had been meant to serve the people, not maximise profits.

“I feel I am a victim in a subtle political game,” she said. “Therefore, I hope to seek refuge with the court.”

On the brink of tears and insisting she was innocent, Yingluck said she was proud to have promoted the policy for the benefit of farmers, which she said brought them better quality of life and educational opportunities for their children.

“Although the pursuit of this public policy, which improved the farmers’ lives, has inflicted great pain on me as I fight against my accusers, I will continue to be patient and determined, in the hope that future governments will carry out more public policies that are advantageous to the people,” Yingluck said.