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.

However, the premier cast doubt on the possibility of an abduction and questioned whether people would be able to transport heavy weapons across the country to commit such a crime.

He added that security officers had been following Wutthipon’s whereabouts, and Lao authorities had told their Thai counterparts that they did not know exactly where Wuthipong was but would keep checking.

Other junta authorities yesterday denied involvement in the alleged disappearance of the outspoken monarchy critic from neighbouring Laos after the reports emerged he was abducted by a group of armed men.

Wutthipong, better known by his nickname “Ko Tee”, is a firebrand self-styled militant leader of the anti-junta red-shirt movement and a critic of the monarchy.

He fled after the 2014 coup and settled in Laos from where he berated the junta in a series of videos and radio broadcasts, often dressed in camouflage outfits.

Over the weekend reports emerged via supporters that Wutthipong had been abducted by a group of Thai-speaking armed men from his home in Vientiane last Thursday.

The reports quoted his wife and a friend who said they were tied up, blindfolded, beaten and attacked with stun guns. Wutthipong was allegedly driven away while they were left behind.

The claims have not been independently verified and reporters have yet to speak to Wutthipong’s wife or the friend to confirm their account.

But in a statement yesterday Human Rights Watch said the reports “raised grave concerns for his [Wutthipong’s] safety” as they called on the Laos authorities to investigate.

As local media coverage of the abduction intensified, Thailand’s military authorities yesterday denied any involvement and accused Wutthipong’s network of spreading rumours.

“We have to investigate further as there are several reasons why he [Wutthipong] might just slip away to create news,” General Thawip Netniyom, secretary-general of Thailand’s National Security Council, told reporters.

He added that authorities had “monitored” Wutthipong and his network in Laos and pushed for the Vientiane authorities to extradite him. “But we haven’t implemented any other measures than that,” he said.

It is not the first time a junta critic has gone missing from Laos.

In June 2016, Ittipon Sukpaen, a less well-known dissident, disappeared from the outskirts of Vientiane and has not been seen since. His family has since said they believe he is dead.

Her supporters interviewed by The Nation denied speculation that they had been organised to show support, insisting that they had come on their own initiative with the trip costing them only a few hundred baht, which they could pay from their own pockets.

The former prime minister delivered her closing statements yesterday in the case linked to her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme.

Dressed in black, Yingluck was warmly welcomed by her supporters who arrived at the scene as early as 5am. They pushed one another to get close to her, with some offering her flowers and others cheering “Yingluck fight on, fight on”.

Hundreds of riot-control police from the Metropolitan Police Bureau were deployed at the Supreme Court where fences were erected, but that did not discourage the crowd.

Residents of Yingluck’s hometown of Chiang Mai, including 65-year-old Kobsiri Nilkaew, travelled in a group and shared the cost of renting a car. Kobsiri said her children had given her Bt300, which she had shared with her friends for the car rental.

She also insisted that no one had paid them to attend the gathering, which they did because they felt the former prime minister was being treated unjustly.

Kobsiri also pledged to come to Bangkok again on August 25 when the verdict is expected, although she said she had little confidence in a positive ruling for Yingluck.

People who travelled from regions in the East and the Northeast also shared similar experiences, saying they had rented vans for no more than Bt500 each.

Another supporter said a group had left Chon Buri together in a van at around 3.30am and arrived at the court before the closing statement was delivered.

The supporter said they had brought their own breakfast to save money, which they ate while waiting for Yingluck to arrive.

“Who would hire us if we come here for her based on our hearts? We emptied our wallets, spending money for the van, and bringing our breakfast without bothering anyone. Those saying we were hired have ill intentions,” the supporter told The Nation.

“I came here based on my heart because I can’t see justice,” concurred Sathaporn Rakkid, 76, from Khon Kaen.

The bill is the second of the 10 organic laws under the new charter passed by the National Legislative Assembly, but the CDC raised objections to some points in it, including the primary voting system, resulting in the establishment of a committee to review the bill.

The committee agreed to allow political party leaders to contest either in constituencies or be placed as their parties’ first party list candidate.

Secondly, the primary voting system would come with penalties, including a five-year ban from politics. However, any fraud in primary voting would not lead to party dissolution as first proposed, Wallop Tangkananurak, the committee’s spokesperson said.

As the bill’s Article 12 stipulates, the board will include Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha and presidents of the Upper and Lower houses as vice presidents.

The National Legislative Assembly, which is wholly handpicked by the junta, is now acting as the Senate while the Lower House’s function was performed by the now-defunct National Reform Steering Assembly.

Another vice president of the board will be either a deputy prime minister or a minister. Members will also include military chiefs, commerce and industry chairpersons, and experts appointed by various ministries.

The Cabinet acknowledged the issue yesterday after being briefed by Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam and PM’s Office Minister Suvit Maesincee, according to government Spokesperson Lt-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd.

Another bill on national reforms was also enacted on Monday. In response, Sansern said, the government needed to set up 11 reform committees within 15 days after the law comes in effect.

Two subcommittees have already been set up on educational and police reform. However, the latter panel has not been fully set up.

Yingluck has been charged with negligence for allegedly failing to prevent corruption and irregularities in the scheme. The court is set to deliver its verdict on August 25.

Chakthip said on Tuesday that, so far, there were no reports indicating a mass mobilisation on the day. However, he had assigned deputy police chief General Srivara Rangsipramanakul to evaluate the situation and decide whether to adjust the security plan.

The police chief said concerned agencies were communicating and creating mutual understanding with the leaders of Yingluck’s supporters.

“Intelligence officials are also monitoring [their movements],” he said.

Meanwhile, Chaktip said police estimated that fewer than 1,000 people showed up in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday to show support for Yingluck as she delivered her final statement to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders.

“Everything is in order. But I warn that they [supporters] should not do anything risky to violate the laws,” he said.

Don suspects the abduction reports about lese majeste violator Wutthipong Kotchathamkhun, better known as “Koh Tee”, are a hoax to stir social currents.

Deputy Defence Minister Udomdej Sitabutr said it was possible the reports stemmed from a certain objective, given that several Pheu Thai figures will her verdicts this month in politically charged cases.

“[Wutthipong] is actually not a top-list person,” Udomdej said “The police are responsible to track those who have been found guilty and fled [from the country]. If there’s a report that he disappeared, those who are in charge should follow up whether that is true.”

National Security Council secretary general Taweep Netniyom said senior officials agreed that the supposed abduction was hard to believe.

But he said the authorities will try verifying if it had happened.

The government has been in contact with Lao officials and has not received confirmation Wutthipong is living in exile in Laos, he said.

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.

Dressed in black, Yingluck walked from the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders at about 10.45am, after taking about an hour to read the statement.

She smiled as she approached her supporters, with hundreds on hand to give her moral support, and she shook their hands. The crowd kept shouting, “Yingluck, fight on.”

She briefly spoke to the media and said thank you.

Yingluck was charged with negligence for allegedly failing to prevent corruption and irregularities in the rice-pledging scheme.

But she insisted she is innocent and had only tried to help farmers.

Her lawyer said her closing statement has 20 pages and covers six aspects.

Hundreds of crowd control police from the Metropolitan Police Bureau were deployed at the Supreme Court. Fences were erected in front of the court.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is set to deliver its verdict on August 25.

Yingluck would have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court if the verdict goes against her, provided the draft bill on criminal procedures against political office-holders is enacted in time to cover her case.

Dressed in black, Yingluck arrived at about 8.30am for the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders trial.

Yingluck smiled and briefly spoke to the media before entering the court.

She thanked her supporters and the media.

She insisted she is innocent and that the rice-pledging scheme was intended to help farmers.

Her lawyer said her closing statement has 20 pages and cover six aspects. The statement will take around one hour to read, starting from 9.30am.

As she emerged from a van at the court, hundreds of her supporters, who began assembling at the court at about 5am, gave her flowers and cheered: “Yingluck fight on, fight on.”

Hundreds of crowd control police from the Metropolitan Police Bureau were deployed at the Supreme Court. Fences were erected in front of the court.

Yingluck was charged with negligence for allegedly failing to prevent corruption and irregularities in the rice-pledging scheme.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders is set to deliver its verdict on August 25.

Yingluck would have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court if the verdict goes against her, provided the draft bill on criminal procedures against political office-holders is enacted in time to cover her case.