She also urged the court to base it ruling on the law and to not take into consideration outside influences, including Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s recent remarks on the case.

She said Prayut’s comments were misleading and he suggested a crime had been committed, even though there had not been a verdict in the case.

Citing the saying that “the court is the final refuge of the people”, Yingluck pleaded with the court to have mercy and dismiss the case.

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, declared as her then-government’s prime policy.

The trial against her started in January last year and extended to last month, before Yingluck’s closing statement.

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

In a firm voice, Yingluck defended herself, citing six major points.

She said she had been unfairly accused by the NACC, with questionable investigation proceedings used against her.

She questioned the indictment process used by prosecutors against her, saying there was incomplete evidence while an additional piece of evidence was added later.

She stressed that she had not been negligent in preventing corruption.

It was impossible for the PM alone to stop the scheme, which was a policy presented in the Parliament, she said.

Yingluck said the scheme did not cause damage, but had in fact helped the economy.

She insisted that she had not violated Article 157 of the Criminal Code and as such had not been negligent.

She said she had listened to anti-corruption agencies including the NACC, which had warned her about the project, even though the law did not oblige her to do so.

Yingluck said she had to implement the scheme and no government agencies had proposed its suspension.

She said as the then prime minister she had nothing to do with government-to-government rice deals.

Yingluck was on the verge of tears in the latter part of her statement, when she said she was proud to have pushed the policy for farmers, saying it enabled them to have a better life and give opportunities for their children to pursue education, although it has brought her great pain as she has had to fight this case.

The courtroom was filled with key members of the Pheu Thai Party such as Chaturon Chaisang, Pichai Nariptapan, Phumtham Wechayachai and Watana Muangsook, as well as red-shirt leaders such as Nattawut Saikua and Thida Tojirakarn.

The court again rejected Yingluck’s request to have the Constitutional Court rule on her arguments in the case as allowed by the new charter.

YIngluck previously asked the court to consider forwarding the case to the Constitution Court to rule on whether legal proceedings under the existing 1999 legal procedures against political holders in criminal cases could apply in her case.