PRIME MINISTER General Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday said he knew the whereabouts of fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra although there was a slim chance she could be extradited.

It was the first admission from the military regime that it had located the runaway ex-premier.

While Thailand holds extradition agreements with several countries, Prayut said Thailand “cannot even bring a certain someone overseas back here”.

He refused to reveal where Yingluck was, saying that more details would be revealed after her verdict is read today, including whether her Thai passport would be revoked as a result of the ruling.

“I have my own spies. I have information but I can’t say it out loud,” Prayut said.

“Still, I need it to be verified.”

A few days after Yingluck disappeared, Prayut said Thailand had directly contacted Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates to find Yingluck.

Thai police also asked Interpol to cooperate with 129 countries in its network.

Prayut said there was still no update from countries contacted through Interpol.

He said that Yingluck had not, and was unlikely to, obtain political asylum status in any country.

Yingluck was accused of dereliction in preventing corruption and irregularities in her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme, which was blamed for causing massive losses to the state worth Bt500 billion.

She apparently pulled off a dramatic escape a day or two before the Supreme Court was to deliver its verdict in the case on August 25.

The reading of the verdict at the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders was subsequently rescheduled for today. If found guilty, Yingluck could face up to 10 years in jail and a lifetime ban from politics.

However, questions have been raised about whether the court will actually read the verdict and what other consequences there could be.

Three scenarios

If the court issues a ruling there are three possible scenarios. First, she could be found guilty with a sentence of one to 10 years in jail, a Bt2,000 to Bt20,000 fine, or both. Second, a guilty verdict could be rendered with a suspended jail term. Third, she could be found not guilty.

There had been debate whether Yingluck would be allowed to appeal a negative ruling.

While the new 2017 Constitution allows the appeal, the new law on criminal procedures against political office holders, which would lay out conditions for an appeal, has not been promulgated.

Yingluck is not expected to show up at court today. If she is sentenced to a jail term, another arrest warrant will be issued for her.

Prayut called for the public to remain calm after today’s ruling at the court. “It should proceed like every other case. No one should be alarmed,” he said.

He also asked the public not to judge quickly the three police officers who were suspected for facilitating her escape.

The officers might be found guilty of merely faking car licence plates, as Yingluck’s arrest warrant was not issued at the time of her apparent escape.

The National Security Council, meanwhile, said that fewer supporters of the former prime minister were expected at the court today, because they had been disappointed at Yingluck’s failure to appear at the court on August 25.

Council secretary-general General Thawip Netniyom said security forces should remain vigilant and were assessing how the court’s verdict would affect the country.

“[We] have to think of all the aspects of the verdict and try to come up with scenarios of what would happen consequently,” he said.

“However, we believe it will not spill over into violence as everyone will respect the court’s ruling.”

In a related development, Metropolitan Police deputy commissioner Pol Maj-General Panurat Lakboon said yesterday the deputy commander of Metropolitan Police Bureau 5, Pol Colonel Chairit Anusit, could be summoned for interrogation over his alleged involvement in Yingluck’s flight.

However, the fact-finding committee must first consider the evidence, he said.

Panurat also said that he was now heading the committee.

The two other police officers suspected of involvement in the former premier’s flight would be interrogated further as witnesses in the case, Panurat said.

The penalty was reduced from four months in prison and a Bt4,000 fine after the suspects pleaded guilty. The jail sentences were suspended for one year.

The court dismissed allegations against the three offenders of agitation, ruling their act was a form of non-violent demonstration, which is allowed by the Constitution.

The court heard that the three activists, Piyarat Chingthep, Songtham Kaewpanphruk and Jirawat Ekakaranuwat, had vandalised a ballot in the referendum in August last year. They said it was a demonstration against the process under the coup-installed regime, which they saw as illegitimate.

While Piyarat tore his ballot, the other two recorded a video of the incident.

During the referendum on August 7 last year, a number of cases of vandalising ballots occurred as voters tore their ballots in two, believing that the two questions on the ballot needed to be separated.

The activists’ case was the only deliberate act brought to court and they were the only suspects punished.

A similar case took place in an election in 2006 when a university lecturer ripped up a ballot, but a lower court dismissed the case.

The court ruled the election, which was called by the then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was unconstitutional under a “pseudo democratic” regime and the ballot cost very little compared to the damage that could be caused by the illegitimate executive power.

However, the Appeal and Supreme courts reversed the verdict and handed down a two-month prison sentence, a Bt2,000 fine and a five-year ban on political activities. The prison sentence was suspended for one year.

Prayut said that at the meeting, which lasted about two hours, committee members only discussed the broad framework of the writing of the national strategy.

He insisted that the strategy would not be rigidly binding for the next 20 years, as it could be revised every five years as a result of changing circumstances and would not limit future governments’ power.

The coup-installed premier also denied that the strategy would pave the way for him to stay on in power.

The national strategy committee will take on the work of the National Legislative Assembly as well as the National Reform Assembly, so as to draw up a master plan for the national strategy, the PM said.

Other agencies, including the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, would also come up with plans and internal work plans accordingly, he added.

The new Constitution also stipulated the national strategy must be adopted, he emphasised.

Prayut also said he believed there should not be any problem as a result of developing the strategy.

The plan would not limit future governments’ work, he said, adding that it would only help set common goals.

The national strategy would help prevent indiscriminate development in all sectors and areas, the prime minister said.

Because they were disappointed at Yingluck’s no-show at the court on August 25, not so many people would turn up to give their moral support this time, General Thawip Netniyom predicted.

Security forces, however, remain vigilant and are assessing how the court’s verdict is likely to impact the country, he stressed.

“[We] have to think of all the aspects of the verdict and try to come up with scenarios of what would happen consequently,” he said. “However, we believe it will not spill over into violence as everyone will respect the court’s ruling.”

In a related development regarding Yingluck’s flight from Bangkok ahead of last month’s scheduled reading of the verdict in the case, Metropolitan Police deputy commissioner Pol Maj-General Panurat Lakboon said on Tuesday that the deputy commander of Metropolitan Police Bureau 5, Pol Colonel Chairit Anusit, could be summoned for interrogation over his alleged involvement in her flight.

However, the fact-finding committee must first consider all evidence, including any explanation by Chairit, he said.

Panurat also explained that he was now heading up the committee, and that this would help complete the case file.

He had already received the case file from the deputy national police chief, Srivara Ransibrahmanakul, regarding Chairit’s suspected involvement in Yingluck’s flight, and would now work to complete the file, he said.

The two other police officers suspected of involvement in the ex-PM’s flight would be interrogated further as witnesses in the case, Panurat said.

Whether or not they received any disciplinary punishment would be up to their affliliated bureau, namely Metropolitan Police Bureau 5, he added.

The penalty was reduced from four-month imprisonment and a Bt4,000 fine after the suspects pleaded guilty. The jail punishment was suspended in one year.

The court heard that the three activists, Piyarat Chingthep, Songtham Kaewpanphruk and Jirawat Ekakaranuwat, vandalised the ballot paper in the vote on the new constitution in August last year. They said it was a demonstration against the process under the coup-installed regime, which they saw as illegitimate.

While Piyarat tore his ballot, the other two played the role of cameramen, recording a video of the incident.

It will be the first state visit to the US by a sitting prime minister.

Trump phoned Prayut in April to discuss issues including the North Korea crisis and invited him to the White House on a date to be determined.

The visit had originally been mooted for July.

Prayut will lead a large Thai delegation to Washington for talks on security, the economy, trade and investment, as well as regional issues, deputy government spokesperson Lt Gen Werachon Sukondhapatipak said on Tuesday.

Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak and the ministers of foreign affairs, interior, commerce and defence would accompany Prayut, he said.

The meeting comes ahead of next year’s commemorations of the 200th anniversary of Thai-US relations.

The Trump administration has been keen to bolster bilateral ties in East and Southeast Asia amid rising tensions over North Korea’s development of nuclear and missile arsenals.

ALL EYES will be on the Supreme Court tomorrow when it is set to deliver a verdict on fugitive former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is accused of negligence in preventing corruption and irregularities in her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme.

Yingluck apparently pulled off a dramatic escape a day or two before the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders was to deliver its verdict in the case on August 25.

The reading of the verdict was subsequently rescheduled for tomorrow. If found guilty, Yingluck could face up to 10 years in jail and a lifetime ban from politics.

However, just days before the scheduled date, questions have been raised about whether the court will actually read the verdict.

Article 32, the current criminal law regarding politicians, states that the court can read a verdict in absentia.

In the current circumstances, in which a defendant has failed to appear to hear a verdict, courts are instructed to postpone the judgment for a month and issue an arrest warrant. Unless officials produce the defendant before the deadline, the court can read the verdict in absentia.

But there are different interpretations of Article 32 and whether the court must read the verdict in absentia on the rescheduled date or is empowered to order a further delay.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday he doubted whether the court would read the verdict, adding that the law stipulated the reading take place in the presence of the defendant, which suggested that the court could choose not to read the verdict tomorrow.

Government legal expert Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said last month the court could postpone the reading.

However, a legal expert and a former judge interviewed by The Nation, both of whom asked not to be named, insisted that the verdict would be delivered on the specified date.

One of two possible scenarios is that the verdict could be read in the defendant’s absence but the prosecution must appear before the court.

Another scenario is that the court could suspend the reading if neither the prosecution nor defendant show up at court, but the verdict would still be issued and made available to the prosecution and defendant. The court would also release the ruling to the public while the media could request further information about the judgment.

If the verdict is read tomorrow, Yingluck will be able to decide what she will do next, a high-ranking party official from her Pheu Thai Party told The Nation, adding that she might reappear in public to present her side of the case to her supporters.

However, if the court postpones the reading, the situation would still be ambiguous, he said.

“A postponement might mean there could be ‘bargaining’,” he said.

If the verdict is read as scheduled, the penalty will probably be harsh given the sentence for Yingluck’s former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom, who was sentenced for 42 years in jail, the official said.

“This would put Yingluck in a difficult situation as her legal status would be changed from defendant to convicted person,” he said.

“In my point of view, it would be better for Yingluck if the verdict is read tomorrow because she can decide her future, including seeking asylum,” he said.

Abhisit also said the postponement of the reading could affect how Yingluck approaches an appeal after the new law governing criminal procedures against political office holders receives royal approval. If the new law were promulgated before the verdict, Yingluck would be allowed to appeal.

The new legislation stipulates that corruption cases do not have a statute of limitations, meaning a convicted person would remain a fugitive in perpetuity.

Abhisit also agreed with many commentators that Yingluck was unlikely to show up at court tomorrow to hear the verdict.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party caretaker secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai told The Nation that Yingluck had fought the case as hard as she could.

“She tried to fight like a lioness and did whatever she could,” he said.

After her closing statements on August 1, Yingluck had an opportunity to fully consider the consequences both of a verdict and fleeing, he said.

Phumtham also admitted Yingluck’s flight had been a loss for his party, adding that it had to live with the consequences.

“We have been through several storms and lost valued people, but we can stay strong because of the unity of our members and public support,” he said.

Meanwhile, government intelligence sources have estimated that 300 to 400 supporters would travel to the Supreme Court tomorrow to provide moral support for Yingluck even though they did not expect to see her.

They have also conducted DNA tests on items found in a seized Toyota Camry sedan believed to have taken Yingluck to Sa Kaew during her August 23 flight from the capital.

A security source said the discovery of her DNA in the sedan would help to prove she had ridden in the vehicle.

Deputy police chief Pol General Srivara Ransibrahmanakul convened a meeting yesterday with investigators and provincial police to coordinate the investigation.

They were also looking for more information about a pickup truck that was suspected of picking her up after she exited the Camry.

Srivara said police had not determined Yingluck’s whereabouts or whether she was in Thailand, as foreign countries had not responded to inquiries about her location.

The most concrete testimony provided so far came from three officers who were detained last Thursday night and reportedly confessed that they had taken Yingluck to Sa Kaew.

The three officers have been accused of using illegally registered cars, but they have not been charged as the suspected escape occurred before an arrest warrant was issued for Yingluck on August 25.

A judicial source speaking on condition of anonymity said the three officers were not guilty of helping Yingluck evade justice given the absence of an arrest warrant.

Srivara also insisted that the ongoing inquiries were not fake, apparently responding to criticisms questioning the authorities’ commitment to a transparent and full investigation.

The security source said Deputy Prime Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan had instructed officers to find legal grounds to charge the three police, at the least for contempt of court because a court order had previously barred Yingluck from travelling overseas.

Former senior officials are also under suspicion for helping Yingluck flee, but Srivara said the investigation had not expanded to consider additional charges given that the original three officers had not been charged.

Meanwhile, Prawit rejected calls for the junta to set up a special panel to consider the issue on the grounds that the investigation was a police matter.

Prawit urged the public to be patient as police were determining whether people involved had broken the law.

The court verdict in Yingluck’s case, which involves alleged negligence regarding her government’s scandal-ridden rice-pledging scheme, is supposed to be read by the Supreme Court tomorrow, after she failed to appear for the originally scheduled reading on August 25.

Two companies of Metropolitan Police officers will be deployed to oversee security and traffic flows in and around the area of the court on the day.

The area will also be inspected before judgement day in the case against the ex-PM, Metropolitan Police deputy commander Pol Maj-General Panurat Lakboon said on Monday.

Yingluck failed to turn up on the original date of August 25 set for the reading of the verdict in the case, and is suspected of having fled the country prior to that date.

Much of the security measures will be the same as those provided for the scheduled August 25 ruling by the Supreme Court.

Mobile metal fences will be put up around 20 to 30 metres from the court’s gate, while no more than 100 people will be allowed to hear the ruling in person in the court’s chamber, Panurat said.

So far, there had been no reports of any “instigation” among Yingluck’s supporters, he added, apparently playing down any concerns over the possibility of an organised protest.

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan said on Monday that there was no need to have any special additional measures for this Wednesday.

“The police can take care of it, and the court makes it clear about [where people can and cannot stay in] its area,” he said.

The so-called agreement – previously often referred to as the “social contract” – consists of 10 aspects, including “solving problems by parliamentary means”, “respecting international obligations”, “not distorting information with the aim of instigating conflict” and “authority must not support any political sides in particular”.

They also include the government’s much-hailed policies and concepts – such as Pracha Rat, or working cooperation among the government, private and civil-society sectors; and the “Thailand 4.0” economic strategy – and the late King’s sufficiency-economy philosophy.

The 24 pages of documents making up the “agreement of truth” also cover the reconciliation-building committee, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan.

Several political blocs were invited by the committee for “discussions and idea exchanges”, with the exception of the People’s Democratic Reform Foundation of Suthep Thaugsuban, who refused to take part in the agreement process.

The latest public hearing on agreement-drafting was held in July, when red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan was the only key political figure to attend.

Prawit had said that the agreement would be drawn up in order to be agreed upon by political groups, but to what extent it would be binding on them is not yet certain.