Deputy Attorney General Khemchai Chutiwong was promoted to take the top post with a vote of 198. Five members abstained.

Khemchai graduated in law from Chulalongkorn University before receiving Master’s and Doctorate degrees from Harvard University.

He recently made comments on the highly controversial new draft bill on court procedures against political office holders, suggesting that it would be applied retroactively at an early stage to existing criminal cases, but exempted from penalties with retrospective effect.

The issue was later widely discussed, including public discussion about the law’s impacts on high profile cases including those of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is scheduled on August 25 to read a verdict for Yingluck, who has been accused of negligence for allegedly failing to prevent corruption in the rice-pledging scheme commissioned by her government.

Huge crowds of supporters are expected to show up to give moral support to the former PM.

Prayut said all gatherings to support Yingluck would be allowed but her supporters should not violate laws, express contempt of court, create chaos, violate others’ rights or cause traffic congestion.

“I don’t bar their movements. I know there are people who love [Yingluck]. If they want to go [to the court], then go, but don’t go because you have been hired,” he said.

He added that he would order security officials to ask Yingluck’s supporters whether they knew why they were attending the event and whether they travelled on their own or were mobilised by a larger group.

Yingluck also has the right to go where she chooses and express herself on social media, he said.

The verdict in the case, which concerns the Yingluck government’s rice-pledging scheme, will be delivered on August 25.

Prawit’s remark on Wednesday comes after revelations that more than a dozen passenger vans carried Yingluck supporters to the court to give her moral support when she delivered her closing argument on August 1.

Ten van drivers were charged by police for taking supporters to the Supreme Court. They were charged with accepting charters without a contract or running on an unauthorised route.

Prawit said the authorities could not possibly ban travel by train or plane if supporters wanted to come to cheer up Yingluck.

But he added that security measures around the court building must be left for the court to decide.

Prawit said he had no information the possible number of people who will show up on August 25, when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders delivers its ruling.

He said he did not have any concerns regarding the case. It was up to the court and the military had not done anything regarding it, he added.

Yingluck, who has been accused of negligence for allegedly failing to prevent corruption in the rice-pledging scheme, will be in court to hear the verdict.

In the final days of her trial and during the delivery of closing statement, hundreds of supporters showed up at around the court to give Yingluck moral support. Scores of police officers were deployed to keep peace and order.

Due to expectations of a huge crowd on August 25, the government has called for Yingluck’s supporters to refrain from causing any chaos or violating the law, and have prohibited organised mobilisation.

Nattaporn Veeranant is free on bail after being arrested over the Wednesday night incident at an apartment building in Bangkok’s Ratchadapisek area.

Prasong Lertratanawisute, director of the Isra Institute, which runs the news agency, said Nattaporn had met the apartment’s caretaker and asked for an interview, so he was baffled why his reporter was charged with entering the building without permission.

He said it’s not clear if the charge represents an attempt to curb press freedom.

Patcharawat was last Wednesday acquitted in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders along with former premiers Somchai Wongsawat and Chavalit Yongchaiyudh and former Metropolitan Police chief Pol-Lieutenant-General Suchart Muenkaew.

The four were found not guilty in regard to a police crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters in October 2008 that left two people dead and more than 400 injured.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has indicated it is investigating other matters concerning Patcharawat, including alleged “unusual wealth”.

The suspension of the red-shirt channel has been seen as an attempt to choke off support for former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra ahead of the August 25 announcement of the Supreme Court’s verdict in her case.

Yingluck is accused of negligence for allegedly failing to prevent corruption in her government’s rice price-pledging scheme.

Prayut said on Thursday that if the suspension order against Peace TV had anything to do with the August 25 verdict reading, then “all media” should have been ordered closed.

Then “the reporters would all lose their jobs and there would be no one asking me questions,” he said.

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) ordered the station’s suspension on Wednesday, saying two programmes it aired on July 4 and July 9 featured content “deemed intended to overthrow the constitutional-monarchy regime and affect national security, public order and good public morals”.

Prayut said the channel had violated NBTC regulations and the suspension had nothing to do with politics.

“Do I have to instruct them on everything? They [the NBTC] did their job. If they don’t, they will be negligent in their duty,” he said.

The decision was made by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).

NBTC secretary-general Takorn Tantasith said the suspension was ordered because two programmes aired by Peace TV on July 4 and July 9, had content “deemed intent to overthrow the constitutional monarchy regime and affect national security, public order and good public morals.”

Peace TV’s failure to suspend the programmes voluntarily violated Article 37 of the Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act, Takorn said. It also broke conditions earlier agreed with the NBTC, he added.

The NBTC order will be enforced as soon as it is handed to the TV station, Takorn said.

The regulating agency is empowered to suspend Peace TV’s licence but has no authority to revoke it, as the TV station has been temporarily protected by an Administrative Court injunction order issued last year.

In April 2015, the NBTC ordered revocation of Peace TV’s operating licence, causing the station to seek court protection.

The injunction was granted after the court found that NBTC did not allow Peace TV to explain itself sufficiently prior to the order that would affect its operation.

Earlier that month, Peace TV’s licence was also suspended for seven days by NBTC, due to broadcasts of content deemed unlawful.

The rights watchdog, in a statement yesterday, called the criminal charges recently filed against the three men the latest examples of the National Council for Peace and Order’s (NCPO’s) contempt for the right to freedom of expression and peaceful dissent.

“The Thai junta’s dictatorial reach has expanded well beyond traditional sources, to social media like Facebook,” said Brad Adams, the group’s director for Asia.

“These dubious charges for peaceful Facebook commentary should be dropped immediately.”

The three critics are accused of sedition and computer crime, charges that have become common in the government’s dealings with anti-junta activists.

“After more than three years in power, the Thai junta has failed to show any real commitment to reversing its abusive rights practices or protecting fundamental freedoms,” Adams said. “Governments around the world should call out Thailand for claiming to respect rights while wilfully violating them.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld the Appeal Court’s ruling, handing down a punishment of two months in prison to pro-democracy activist Sombat Boonngamanong for failing to report to the NCPO on being summoned in 2014 but suspended the sentence for one year.

Sombat, better known as Bor Kor Lai Jud, was among the first political activists summoned by the NCPO soon after it staged the coup in 2014. He, however, did not answer the summons and was arrested in less than two weeks after the order.

Sombat was prosecuted for failing to report to the NCPO as well as failing to abide by an order given by a legally authorised public officer.

The Criminal Court ruled that the NCPO’s announcement against dissent, which carries a punishment of up to Bt40,000 fine and up to two years in prison, came after the action had already been committed. Hence, it should not have retrospective effect, the court said.

This is in addition to the fact that the NCPO’s announcement targeted certain people as enlisted in the summons. The court explained that it was illegal to issue a law in order to punish some people.

However, Sombat remained guilty of violating Section 368 of the Criminal Code for disobeying the authority’s order, according to the ruling. He was fined Bt500, but not held liable for imprisonment.

Both the accuser and the defendant appealed the verdict. The Appeal Court last year found him guilty and ruled he should be fined Bt3,000 and serve two months in jail, but suspended the punishment for one year.

The party’s move follows repeated actions by the junta against several Pheu Thai figures such as former ministers Watana Muangsook, Pichai Naripthaphan and several ex-MPs who have been summoned, charged and visited by military and police officers since the NCPO came to power following the 2014 coup.

In the statement, Pheu Thai blamed the NCPO for using legal instruments to suppress and harass the public even after the 2017 constitution has been promulgated.

The NCPO, headed by PM General Prayut Chan-o-cha, has also issued absolute orders to retain or charge people having different opinions to curb their freedom of expression despite their constitutional rights, it said.

“Protection and respect for freedom of expression should guarantee that administrations of the government and the NCPO are transparent and accountable, on par with elected governments,” the statement said.

The party also called for respect for the rule of law, and justice that enabled defendants to fight their cases under the Penal Code.

Pheu Thai’s former PM Yingluck Shinawatra, who is due to hear the final verdict from the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders on her government’s rice-pledging scheme on August 25, had said earlier that she was being watched and followed by soldiers when she went on field trips.

The remark came after strong criticism that the new method could create confusion and might not eliminate corruption in elections.

Asked for whom the organic law had been drafted, Meechai responded that it was essentially the people who would benefit.

“The system has been designed to make vote-buying difficult. But this does not mean vote-buying will be suppressed altogether,” the chief drafter said. “But if anyone has any better idea, please let the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) know.”

In response to the remark that the CDC should be responsible if this move failed to curb election fraud, Meechai said that this was the responsibility of the Election Commission, because the CDC did not organise elections. He added that election fraud had been rampant in the past.

Meechai was also asked about legislators who had signed up to petition the Constitutional Court to interpret the tenure of the ombudsmen under the organic law. He said that the legislators could do so without having to consider the CDC’s stance.

The office terms of commissioners of independent organisations have also been controversial. Some organisation members have been removed from office following the new rules, while others have been spared. The CDC, National Legislative Assembly and the independent organisations may not see eye-to-eye in these matters.

According to the current charter, they could set up a joint committee to review the rules or they could petition the Constitutional Court for a review.

Srisuwan said that the process lacked public involvement, and that could be against Article 65 of the 2017 Constitution, which says that the national-strategy law shall contain provisions relating to people’s participation and public consultation throughout every sector, the activist said.

Despite this requirement, the law is to be written based on a draft produced by a committee set up by a cabinet resolution in May 2015, according to the bill’s Article 28.

That means that the law was lined up more than two years before the actual law would be produced, Srisuwan noted.

Article 28 also allows earlier public hearings, such as those held by the 2015 committee and during the bill’s legislation process, to be part of opinion gathering for the 20-year strategy.

With this stipulation, future hearings on the draft might not be prohibited but could be rightfully exempted, he noted.

How the committee, chaired by the secretary-general to Prime Minster Prayut Chan-o-cha, General Vilas Aroonsri, actually functions is also not certainly known.

Law watchdog iLaw also noted earlier that it tried asked for the public release of the committee’s draft on national strategy but was refused.

While the government actually opened the bill draft up for public comments during its legislation process, the effort only attracted a few reponses.

According to iLaw, only eight comments were made on the Government House website on the strategy bill draft as of May this year.

This might violate the charter’s Article 77, which requires the authority to consult with stakeholders and take them into consideration at every stage of the legislative process, he added.

The national strategy bill was enforced on July 31 together with a counter reform bill, amid criticism that it will put too much obligation on future governments in regard to military-involved strategy committees.

If the Constitutional Court finds that the strategy laws violate the charter, the reform bill will be abolished altogether.