When asked by reporters whether those suspended cases would proceed under the new law, Wissanu answered yes.

Wissanu explained that ongoing cases would be proceeded under the new law.

The bill, among 10 organic laws required by the new charter, has become highly controversial as it would enable the court to proceed with cases that had been put on hold even in the absence of the defendants.

Its provisional clause suggests that any ongoing cases would proceed as per the new law. In addition, the statute of limitations would not be applicable if the defendant has fled the country.

The bill also addresses cases where a final court ruling has been made before the defendant left the country, but lawmakers are debating whether penalties put on hold because of the defendant’s absence could be retroactive.

Political observers have criticised the new bill as targeting particular persons.

Meechai Ruchupan, chief law drafter of the bill, said the bill is not retroactive in nature as it involves judicial procedures, not penalties.

He said it would be beneficial to the defendants as they can appeal against the rulings, he added.

It is the third law passed by the NLA last month, and now is in the process of a legal review. If any concerned agencies raise objections to it, a tripartite review committee will be set up to review the law and rule.

Maj-General Kongcheep Tantrawanich, chair of the committee’s sub panel on public relations, said the committee has completed public hearings on the draft and would slightly reword it before resubmitting it to the body for endorsement.

The so-called social contract is a result of a months-long effort to forge reconciliation among concerned parties. The government has invited political parties and groups, as well as some civil organisations, to share views about critical problems facing the country. The input is to be reflected in the contract, with the expectation that the final draft would find widespread agreement.

The general claimed that the social contract has been warmly welcomed by people in all regions where public hearings were held.

Key red-shirt and Pheu Thai figures were also present. Among them were Nuttawut Saikua, Weng Tojirakarn, Watana Muangsook, and Khattiya Sawasdipol.

Although Yingluck did not arrive until 8.30am, supporters had been waiting for their beloved politician since 5am. Their numbers grew quickly from dozens to hundreds over the next three hours.

Several people told The Nation they were at the court for the first time, travelling from other provinces such as Ratchaburi, Chiang Mai, and Khon Kaen. They said they wanted to give Yingluck moral support ahead of this significant court appointment.

When the former premier appeared, she was quickly engulfed by the media and fans who offered her flowers, souvenirs and kind words. They also tried to reach out to her for a handshake and a hug.

Overwhelmed by the tremendous support, Yingluck was moved to tears as she greeted her supporters.

Those who could not get near her waved their hands and cried out loudly, telling the ex-premier they loved her and telling her to keep fighting.

It took more than half-an-hour for Yingluck to walk just 20 meters, to get past the supporters and enter the court building.

Yingluck has been accused of negligence in preventing corruption and irregularities in the controversial rice-pledging scheme. If found guilty, she could face a heavy fine and a jail term up to 10 years.

In the final hearing on Friday, eight defence witnesses will testify before closing statement and the final verdict would be given.

The court will also today rule on whether to grant a request by Yingluck to seek a Constitutional Court review on her case’s legal validity under the new Constitution, which came into effect in April.

In her last-ditch attempt to delay a high-court judgement, Yingluck pointed out in her petition that Article 235 of the new charter requires the court to base its consideration upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). She said that this contradicted the 1999 law on court procedures, which required the court to mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

The statement said the party has repeatedly raised the issue as it views that the process and key figures in the process involve only bureaucrats and lacks wide public participation.

The proposals made by the committees designated to formulate a reconciliation model are just recommendations, and not a serious solutions that touches on critical issues for critical bodies to adhere to, including the military as well as independent agencies it views as part of the problem.

The proposals, the party claims, lack thorough a study of the fundamental problems, and the social contract out of them would not be fruitful or worth any commitment from concerned parties.

The party’s statement was issued one day before its key figure, Yingluck Shinawatra, is to take part in final testimony in response to allegation over the rice mortgage scheme under her government.

JATUPORN PROMPAN, a key Pheu Thai Party politician and leader of the red-shirt political movement, was yesterday sentenced to a year in jail for defaming former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in a speech he made in 2009.

The Supreme Court imprisoned him without suspension and ordered him to publish an apology to Abhisit in newspapers for seven days.

The country’s highest court overruled two lower courts that had found him not guilty. While addressing about 10,000 red-shirt protesters at Phai Khiew Temple in Bangkok’s Don Muang district in May 2009, Jatuporn accused Abhisit of being a “tyrant who has his hands stained with blood for ordering the killing of people”.

Jatuporn was referring to a claim by red-shirt leaders that a number of anti-government protesters were killed during their confrontation with security forces on a Bangkok street. However, authorities at that time during the tenure of the Abhisit administration maintained that no one was killed.

Abhisit, the leader of the Democrat Party, filed his defamation case against Jatuporn, chairman of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), in June 2009.

The Criminal Court had rejected Abhisit’s case in December 2012, saying that Jatuporn’s comment was tantamount to political retaliation in a democratic system.

Abhisit later took his case to the Appeal Court, which in 2014 upheld the lower court’s ruling and rejected his plea on grounds that Jatuporn had expressed an opinion.

The Supreme Court yesterday said Jatuporn, as a leader of the red shirt group, was involved in a bitter political conflict with Abhisit. Jatuporn’s allegation against the Abhisit in his speech certainly had an impact on the Abhisit, the court ruled.

The court found that the Jatuporn did not make his opinion honestly or criticise the plaintiff in a fair manner. His action was rather libelous.

In addition to the jail term, Jatuporn was ordered to have his written apology published in the Daily News, Thai Post and Matichon newspapers for seven days at his own cost.

The firebrand red-shirt leader had been detained at Bangkok Remand Prison since the Criminal Court in October last year ordered his bail to be revoked. Jatuporn, along with 18 other red-shirt leaders, was charged in 2010 with terrorism.

A court granted him temporary release on the condition that he did not insult or defame others or stoke unrest. But last year, the court ruled that he had violated bail conditions by using “harsh words against others” while talking politics on television.

In January, Jatuporn was granted bail again and released from detention due to a health problem and his “show of remorse” while behind bars, the court said. He was released on Bt600,000 bail on conditions that he does not leave the country without court permission and does not to break his original bail conditions again.

Corrections Department director-general Kobkiat Kasiwiwat said yesterday that Jatuporn would get good care while in detention and would be entitled to medical treatment if he suffered a kidney infection again. “When inmates get ill, they are treated by the medical team under the human rights principle,” he said. The agency will check Jatuporn’s health and produce a criminal record before sending him to jail, Kobkiat said.

He said if the red-shirt leader was sick, the department would ensure he gets medical care but would not take him to an outside hospital.

Jatuporn, 51, was born in Surat Thani. At the age of 12, following his father’s death, he moved to Bangkok’s Wat Bowonniwet Temple, where his brother was then a Buddhist monk. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Ramkhamhaeng University.

In 1996, Jatuporn joined the Palang Dharma Party, which was then led by popular politician Chamlong Srimuang. But he defected to Thaksin Shinawatra’s new Thai Rak Thai Party two years later.

After Thai Rak Thai was dissolved by a court order for vote buying, Jatuporn joined its reincarnation, the People’s Power Party. After it was dissolved, he moved to the Pheu Thai Party, which is considered another proxy of Thaksin.

Jatuporn was elected an MP and became a core leader of the pro-Thaksin UDD. In 2010, shortly after a court ordered Bt36 billion of Thaksin’s assets to be seized, Jatuporn joined other top UDD figures in leading a massive red-shirt protest that seized control of downtown Bangkok and culminated in violence in April and May. The 2010 unrest left more than 90 people dead and some 2,000 others injured. In March 2014, Jatuporn was named the top UDD leader, replacing Thida Thavornseth.

The court cited the facts that the six accused of sedition had already been convicted for invasion of Government House – the seat of the country’s administration – and been punished with a two-year jail term, as its reason for dismissing the sedition case.

The six who were accused of sedition were: former general Chamlong Srimuang, Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipob Thongchai, Suriyasai Katasila, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, and media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul who is serving a jail term in a separate case involving violation of the stock market law.

The court warned the other three leaders – Chaiwat Sinsuwong, Amorn Amornrattananont, Terdpoom Jaidee – in whose cases the determination of penalties was suspended for two years, that their sentence would be reviewed if they repeated their behaviour.

The defendants had denied the charge and were granted bail, except Sondhi.

Known as yellow shirts, they had staged protests against the government of the time, accusing of them being proxies of Thaksin Shinawatra. They marched to several government compounds, including the Interior Ministry, the Election Commission, the Royal Thai Police, and others to put pressure on the government.

They can appeal the verdict within 30 days.

JUST A DAY after a key party figure and red-shirt leader was sent to jail, former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra will today attend the last hearing at the Supreme Court for alleged negligence in her government’s controversial rice-pledging scheme – a case in which she could face a jail term.

At today’s hearing, the 17th in this case, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is also expected to announce the date for its judgement.

The political heat has turned up with Jatuporn Prompan, the top red-shirt leader and a key Pheu Thai politician, being sentenced by the Supreme Court yesterday to a one-year imprisonment in a libel case involving former premier Abhisit Vejjajiva.

However, observers viewed that yesterday’s verdict against Jatuporn could discourage Yingluck’s red-shirt supporters from showing up in a great number at today’s final hearing, as had been planned.

The court, today, will also rule on whether to grant a request by Yingluck to seek a Constitutional Court review on her case’s legal validity under the new Constitution, which came into effect in April.

In her last-ditch attempt to delay a high-court judgement, Yingluck pointed out in her petition that Article 235 of the new charter requires the court to base its consideration upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). She said that this contradicted the 1999 law on court procedures, which required the court to mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

During the previous 16 court hearings into the rice-pledging case, a few hundreds of Yingluck supporters would usually show up at the court’s premises, but their number is expected to be higher today due to the significance of the final hearing, prompting Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to urge supporters to abide by the law and respect the judicial branch.

In addition, General Chalermchai Sitthisart, the Army chief, brushed aside allegations that the military had dispatched personnel to monitor the movement of key Pheu Thai Party figures ahead of today’s court hearing.

Chakkawud Triwallop, a red-shirt leader in the northeastern province of Nakhon Ratchasima, said he had received an annonymous call telling him to be low-profile in displaying moral support for the ex-premier so as to avoid worsening the political climate and economy.

Chalermchai said no special orders had been issued Army personnel concerning today’s final court hearing. He said Yingluck’s supporters had a right to show their moral support without breaking the law.

Chalernchai’s estimate was that there would be 300 to 500 people showing up at the high court premises today when Yingluck attends the hearing, adding police will be responsible for law enforcement during the session.

Deputy premier Wissanu Krea-ngam said Yingluck had a right to petition the Consti-tutional Court to review the court procedures in the rice-pledging case in which she has been charged with neglecting her duty as prime minister while implementing the scheme, resulting in corruption and huge loss of taxpayer money.

Wissanu said it was up to the high court to decide whether Yingluck’s petition would be forwarded to the Constitutional Court for a review as sought by the ex-premier under Article 5 of the new charter. A judicial review would lead to a further delay of the high court’s judgement.

Besides Yingluck, the former commerce and deputy commerce ministers of the Yingluck government are also facing similar criminal lawsuits pending in the Supreme Court.

In addition, Yingluck and former Cabinet members are also fighting civil liability lawsuits in which the government is demanding massive compensation for state losses in the rice-pledging scheme.

Meanwhile, Yuttapong Charassa-thien, a former deputy agriculture minister of the previous Yingluck government, yesterday led a group of media representatives to inspect the premises of Kanchana Feedmill Co in Ratchaburi province to verify the firm’s purchase of government-owned rice.

According to Yuttapong, the firm won a Commerce Ministry contract for 38,924 tonnes of rice which came from the previous government’s pledging scheme but that amount of rice was not present at the feedmill firm’s warehouses.

Yuttapong earlier asserted that the government had sold rice suitable for consumption to the feedmill industry at a very low price resulting in bigger losses for the rice-pledging scheme in order to justify its lawsuits against former premier Yingluck. An executive of Kanchana Feedmill said the firm had purchased 38,924 tonnes of rice from the Commerce Ministry and the rice was stored at other warehouses.

He said the rice had already been used in feedmill production.

“Our hearts sink but when we choose to walk this route in the rain, we know we will get wet and cold. We believe we will be acknowledged by society as we fight for democracy and equality, and we do not intend to take revenge,” Nattawut Saikua, secretary-general of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), told Peace TV yesterday after UDD chairman Jatuporn Prompan was sentenced to a year in jail for defaming former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2009.

Nattawut said the UDD was born with a shared political ideology, which meant that individuals were important, but principles were more so.

“The freedom of the UDD leaders is not more important than that of others who have the same ideology. Jatuporn’s freedom has been taken today as has that of our brothers and sisters who also have no freedom,” he said.

Nattawut added that red-shirt supporters’ “hearts were hurt” but they had to persevere and use the pain they felt to continue fighting to the end.

The joint committee comprising 11 members from the NLA, the CDC, and the Election Commission (EC), would convene for the first time next Tuesday. They have 15 days to amend the embattled law to be in line with the Constitution.

The NLA had passed the law last month, but according to the Constitution, relevant agencies can petition against it if they find any clauses to be unconstitutional.

The CDC, responsible for drafting the original bill, had raised five points in the bill that could violate the Constitution.

The CDC said enactment of the bill must take into consideration another organic law concerning reforms required by the new charter. This was so that it could meet the spirit of the charter to make political parties more accountable and participatory.

However, the primary voting system introduced in the bill, which required parties to conduct internal poll in determining constituency candidates, could leave a loophole for committing fraud. The CDC said that it might be against the Constitution, which intends to eliminate all forms of corruption.

It also said that listing of party leaders as first party-list MPs would limit their chance to contest constituencies, thus removing their political rights and violating the charter.

Also, it said that insisting parties have no fewer than 50 members in areas without branches or representatives before primary voting could be held was equivalent to eliminating the chances of parties without so many members. This would affect the charter’s principle of making all voices meaningful in elections.

The CDC said that the organic law might promote inequality between major and small political parties since not all of them could afford to set up branches and hold primary elections. This would potentially violate the charter by being partial to a group.

The organic law on political parties is one of the four priority legislations necessary for organising an election expected to take place next year after years of military ruling.

After the NLA passed the bill last month, it met with strong criticism regarding its practicality, given the new voting system and the limited time.

There are some six points in the bill that the EC has objected to, including the total reset of the current EC. However, it has decided not petition the reset question to the court, as the optics of this could lead some people to conclude that it was fighting for the personal interests of EC members.

Instead, said Election Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn on Thursday, it will petition the court over the constitutionality of two controversial points. The first concerns the removal of the EC’s authority to organise local elections. The second is the removal of the power of EC members to suspend elections if fraud is found.

The petition would not derail the planned election as there is still plenty of time to revise the bill, Somchai added.

The bill is among four organic laws necessary to the coming election, and the first that has passed the National Legislative Assembly (NLA)’s needed endorsement. The NLA endorsed the law early last month.