If the law was promulgated before the verdict was read, the defendant in this case must appeal before the court to make an appeal, while there would be no statute of limitations regarding the case.

Under current criminal law, a court is given the freedom to prolong reading the verdict in the event that a defendant is absent. An arrest warrant would be issued and a deadline set for finding and returning the defendant. The court would then decide whether or not it would read the verdict in absentia.

This is because the law stipulates that an opportunity must first be made to ensure the court reads the verdict before a defendant, Abhisit said. This suggests the court could read, or choose not to read, the verdict against Yingluck on the September 27 date previously announced by the judges.

However, if the court read the verdict and sentenced her to time in jail, it is likely that Yingluck would not give herself up. An appeal would also not guarantee a victory and her freedom.

Abhisit said these scenarios make it unlikely that Yingluck would show up at the court on September 27 to hear the verdict in charges that she was derelict in her duty to ensure proper procedures were followed in relation to her government’s rice pledging scheme.

Discovery of her DNA within would help them prove that Yingluck had been in the sedan, a security source said.

The car was seized and three police officers arrested late last week. They were interrogated under suspicion of helping Yingluck flee through the eastern province that borders Cambodia.

Physical evidence of Yingluck presence was not found at the last military checkpoint in Sa Kaew province. To date, investigating officers have not been able to say with certainty whether she crossed the border or not.

If evidence is found, Yingluck could face additional charges of violating immigration laws. The source said a group of people had been sent for a week or so to carefully examine potential escape routes.

The three police officers are not now charged with a crime. Yingluck fled prior to the court issuing an arrest warrant for her on August 25, the day she failed to appear before Supreme Court judges to here their ruling on charges of dereliction of duty related to her government’s rice pledging scheme.

A judge source has clarified that the three officers were not guilty of helping Yingluck flee on August 23 as her run occurred before the court’s August 25 issuance of an arrest warrant.

The source said Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan had instructed investigating officers to find legal grounds to charge the three police. At the least, they could be accused of contempt of court because judges had previously barred Yingluck from travelling overseas, the source said.

Prawit urged the public to be patient as the police are now looking into the facts to see whether those involved had broken the law.

At this point, three police officers who allegedly helped Yingluck leave the country had not been found to have broken the law, except for unlawfully using cars, Prawit said.

Police are looking into whether the accused officers had a plan ahead of Yingluck’s flight, to establish whether to lay charges against them. They are also searching for another car believed to been involved with Yingluck’s escape.

The three officers were detained for interrogation late on Thursday night after the police found evidence on CCTV cameras showing a police colonel driving in a Toyota Camry that took Yingluck from Bangkok to Sa Kaew province.

It has not yet been established whether or how she crossed the border.

But the road may not be as smooth as expected, Pheu Thai party caretaker secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai has warned.

“Don’t ever daydream of [returning as the prime minister],” Phumtham told The Nation in an exclusive interview.

He pointed to Myanmar, where the military regime set regulations to block the then-opposition of Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy, which won a landslide victory in the 2015 election.

“You can learn a lesson from Myanmar. The military controlling the government for more than 50 years eventually had to give power to Suu Kyi,” he said.

Under the 2017 charter, senators can join MPs to propose to suspend the rule requiring prime ministerial candidates to come from political party lists, paving the way for an “outsider” prime minister to be selected. Dubbed the “military party”, the 250 senators, who will be selected by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), are regarded as a crucial support for Prayut to become the next prime minister.

However, Phumtham dismissed such a scenario.

“I don’t see how Prayut will become prime minister again, unless he runs in an election. Which party or who will nominate his name? Pheu Thai will definitely not,” he said.

Besides, the junta had failed to solve the crisis and various problems after staging the coup in 2014 to overthrow the Yingluck Shinawatra government, he said.

After more than three years of ruling under special powers, the military had answered the question of whether it is capable of running the country, he said. Ruling the country involves economics and social issues, not just security, he said.

Phumtham suggested that the junta talk to people on the street to understand that they are still suffering from bread-and-butter issues and wanted an election to be held as soon as possible.

“If you [the NCPO] cannot do that, you have to admit it. And go back to the barracks. Your expertise is as soldiers and taking care of security. If an elected government fails to perform, they would resign and let the people cast their votes [in an election] again,” he said.

The junta has pledged that an election will be held following the “road map to democracy”, and it is tentatively scheduled for late next year. However, Pheu Thai, the former ruling party, was not certain that the vote would be held, Phumtam said.

“What is obvious is uncertainty. The junta always creates ‘conditions’ for the election. First, they said they were waiting for the organic laws, and when the laws were about to completed, they said if ‘no reconciliation, then no election’,” Phumtham said.

He also urged the junta leaders to return governance to a normal state of affairs.

“The answer today is not who wanted whom to become prime minister, but to release the country from this undemocratic trap and enable it to be acknowledged by the international community to move it forward,” he said.

On the contrary, people in power tended to look for an “exception” or “crisis” to find an excuse, he said.

“We think the attempt to find an ‘abnormal’ way is a crisis for the country. And we don’t see any obstacles for the country to move forward – unless some people still enjoy power, want to perpetuate their own power and do not want to resume a normal system for the country,” he said.

Speaking of the possibility of a national unity government after the next election, Phumtham said in his opinion politicians in the House of Representatives could successfully agree on a prime ministerial candidate nominated by political parties without needing an “outsider” prime minister.

“Unless there is a huge crisis, for example. World War Three or a tsunami, we may need a national unity government,” he said.

However, he insisted his party would not join such a government formed by unelected military officials.

As for Pheu Thai’s future after the fugitive former prime minister Yingluck fled the country, critics have questioned if her escape would spell the end of the “Shinawatra era” in the party. He said his party had several figures who could serve as the next party leader, including Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, Chaturon Chaisang, Phongthep Thepkanjana, Bhokin Palakula and Chaikasem Nitisiri.

Suriyasai Katasila, a deputy dean of Rangsit University, said the public had been closely watching the incident, so the NCPO must ensure that the truth is uncovered by credible investigators. In addition, he said, other security and related agencies should be appointed to take charge of the investigation since police investigators alone were not sufficient to give it credibility.

Pol Colonel Chairit Anurit, a deputy chief of the Bangkok Metropolitan Police, has admitted in a preliminary investigation that he had helped Yingluck exit the country via the Thai-Cambodian border by using police vehicles and other cars to pick up the ex-premier from her house in Bangkok’s Soi Watcharaphol area.

Suriyasai said many people were sceptical about the government’s handling of this issue. Also, the NCPO itself is seen by some as having tacitly allowed Yingluck to leave the country before facing the high court’s verdict in her case of negligence of official duty while overseeing her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

He said he believed high-level authorities were responsible for tacitly approving Yingluck’s efforts to flee and police investigators appear to be taking the case too lightly. This would affect the reputation of the justice system, reinforcing perceptions that the rich and powerful are often let go without having to face punishment, he added.

If the case was not handled seriously, the government and NCPO would be seen as conspiring with other interest groups to cheat the justice system, Suriyasai added.

According to the report submitted to Pol General Srivara Rangsibhamkul, the deputy national police chief, Pol Colonel Chairit Anurit, a deputy chief of the Bangkok Metropolitan Police, was instrumental in helping Yingluck to leave the country via the Thai-Cambodian border last month.

Chairit told investigators that on August 23 at around 6.20pm he drove a police car to wait for a car carrying Yingluck to appear at a Tesco Lotus branch in Bangkok’s Soi Watcharaphol area. Shortly afterwards, a Black Mercedes with Yingluck as a passenger arrived at the scene and sped towards Chaiyapeuk Housing Estate in the nearby area.

Chairit’s car was waiting in front of Soi 23 of the housing estate. Shortly afterwards, another Toyota Camry with the Nor Yor 2123 licence plate appeared. Yingluck tranferred to this vehicle, which was later driven to Chairit’s house. Chairit himself also drove his police car to his house.

According to the police report, another two police officers also helped Yingluck to exit the country via the Thai-Cambodian border on August 23, two days before the Supreme Court was due to read its verdict.

WHILE THE INTERNATIONAL community is working to help Rohingya who fled the military “clearance operation” in Myanmar’s Rakhine state, their ethnic kin in Thailand found it difficult to do anything on their behalf.

As the number of refugees, mostly Rohingya fleeing from Myanmar to Bangladesh since late last month, reached more than 420,000, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asia Patrick Murphy said there was an urgent need to stop the violence and facilitate humanitarian assistance.

Murphy was in Myanmar from Monday to Wednesday to assess the situation and while there, he visited Rakhine and met with senior officials, including the leader of the civilian government, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the military commander in chief, Min Aung Hlaing.

While Washington has limited engagement with the Tatmadaw – the Burmese military – the US supported the Suu Kyi government’s effort to end the crisis, he said.

“We appeal to the military, while they have a legitimate need to respond to the militant attack, there is equally a need to protect the civilian population, to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to contribute to reduce the tension and not discriminate when it comes to those who receive humanitarian assistance under the rule of law,” Murphy said.

He attended her national address in Nay Pyi Taw on Tuesday and said Suu Kyi had laid down fundamental principles for all parties in the conflict to end the crisis and stabilise Rakhine state.

Murphy was in Thailand on Friday and said he had consulted with the authorities in Bangkok to seek ways to help end the Rohingya crisis but did not reveal the Thai government’s stance, which apparently was similar to that of the Myanmar military.

The Thai junta, which prefers to call them “Bengali”, as do the Tatmadaw and Myanmar elite, has expressed its readiness to join international communities in providing humanitarian assistance, but is unlikely to offer refugee status to any more of them in Thailand.

Thailand has a few thousand Rohingya, who fled the trouble at home to settle in the kingdom since violence erupted some years ago.

Siyeed Alam and Muhammad Rafik have made new lives for themselves in Thailand since leaving their Rohingya clan in Rakhine state nearly 20 years ago. As they themselves are still struggling to acquire legal status in the Kingdom, there is little they can do to assist their friends and relatives fleeing to Bangladesh.

“These are the conditions that the fleeing Rohingya are living under,” Siyeed said in an interview with The Nation, showing a clip that one of his friends had sent him. “This is as much as we can do. Showing outsiders of what happen, speaking for them, and hoping them some international organisations will seriously look into the matter.”

A few years ago, the Rohingya were able to travel across the Andaman Sea in the hope of being able to settle in Thailand, Siyeed said. However, the recent insurgency had been so sudden that they had no time to prepare for such a trip, not even time to try to sneak through the Thailand-Myanmar border.

Their only choice was to keep fleeing westward to Bangladesh, even though they knew the refugee camps there might already be overloaded.

Muhammad and Siyeed might have been lucky is than they were merely adventurers, not crisis escapers, when they settled in Thailand and managed to get jobs.

Siyeed, who also chairs the Rohingya Association in Thailand, is a shopkeeper while Muhammad helps Thai courts as an interpreter for Rohingya facing legal problems.

They are mostly reduced to raising public awareness about the Rakhine crisis. Their Facebook page, Rohingya Association Thailand, actively shares news from a Rohingya perspective on the crisis in Rakhine and has gained more than 3,700 likes so far.

“We are not asking for special treatment – we know that it’s not our place to demand anything,” Siyeed said. “We also know how the Thais perceive us Rohingya. Some may be compassionate and some may not be. People can have different opinions and we’re fine with that.”

Pheu Thai’s Sudarat Keyuraphan, Democrat Ong-art Klampaiboon, and Bhumjaithai’s Anutin Charnvirakul took part in a panel discussion, “Thailand’s road map, how far is it”, organised by Isra Institute’s 7th Media Executives Class on yesterday.

Sudarat said at this point nobody could said when the election would be held – not even prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha – because a great deal of uncertainty lay ahead, especially concerning enactment of the organic laws. But if there is no election in the next one or two years, Sudarat believed that the country and its people would suffer due to effects of the uncertainty on the economy.

Ong-art said the road map determines that the election be held late next year, but considering signs sent by the premier himself, reconciliation would be a critical factor affecting that timetable. Nobody was certain whether all the concerned parties had come to terms with reconciliation yet.

Anutin said despite the uncertainty, he believed that the election would take place sooner rather than later, as the junta government could not prolong its term any further. Anutin predicted that it would fall somewhere in 2018.

“To prevent unpleasant reactions, PM Prayut must keep his word and follow the road map,” said Anutin, adding that those who came to politics in the future should not act as “a fish of two waters” to confuse matters again.

Sudarat said her party could not convene a meeting yet, although some suggested that she might take over as leader. She said her party’s stance still remained the same, which is protecting the constitutional monarchy from any sanctions, including future coups.

Ong-art said of politics after the election that parties should be allowed to have the freedom to propose their leaders for the role of premier. The idea of a “national government” is a matter for the future, and the picture of Thai politics would become clearer when an election is held, he said.

‘Revive trust’

Anutin said it would be the worst nightmare if the appointed senators selected the premier, |as that could shake political stability.

He urged concerned parties to allow politics to proceed naturally, allowing parties to compete in an agreeable and acceptable system.

Associate Professor Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, of Thammasat University’s Law Faculty, said enactment of the organic laws had become a factor for the election. The Constitution Drafting Commission did not write into the charter what to |do next if the laws were not completed within the deadline, suggesting room for the junta to drag its heels on calling an election, he said.

Prinya said politicians should show some spirit and help revive trust in democracy among the people by respecting the rules. This could help bring the election nearer to reality, he added.

Prinya, however, believed that “hybrid” politics – where the elected MPs would work alongside the selected senators – would prevail in the short term. It was questionable whether this was the best option for the country, although this was the plan for the first five years.

He suggested that all parties allow the senators to work freely, including in voting for a new prime minister. All parties in conflict, be they ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra or the junta itself, should step back and allow the politicians and senators to work for the people, he said.

Niwat Roykaew, the group’s chairman, said they have received a letter from their lawyers informing them about the court’s decision to drop their complaint about the hydro-electricity project.

According to the lawyer, Sor Rattanamanee Polkla, the group filed a complaint against the Water Resources Department and the Thai National Mekong Committee in their capacity as the Thai agencies jointly responsible for the formal consultation for any development projects on the river under the Mekong River Commission, known as the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA), part of the body’s river governance.

The group claimed that the authorities failed to perform proper consultations with villagers likely to be affected by the dam, which is only 90 kilometres from Chiang Khong.

The group wants to see the agencies issue a regulation to guide their duties on this consultation process, regardless of the dam’s location outside the country.

Pak Beng, if built, was expected to generate 4,700 GWh of electricity per year, of which 90 per cent would be sold to Thailand and the remaining 10 per cent to Laos’ state-owned utility.

Niwat said the court’s dismissal reflected the fact that the real issue had not been addressed. In the case of Xayaburi, the first dam built on the Lower Mekong in Xayaburi province in Laos, it was clear to all concerned that the PNPCA was incomplete.

Niwat hoped that the court would see the same point as in the Xayaburi’s case, where the appeal was eventually taken up by the Supreme Administrative Court.

Niwat said the group would try to clarify the point in the new appeal that, despite its location, the dam would have severe effects on Thai citizens, and the responsible agencies must ensure that the people’s rights are secured under the constitution.