Jatuporn was taken to the Bangkok Remand Prison immediately after the verdict was announced.

The court, however, upheld the release on bail of four other key figures.

The ruling against Jatuporn, chairman of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), followed a prosecutor’s request that bail for the five red-shirt leaders including Jatuporn be revoked in relation to terrorism charges filed against them in relation to the street protests in 2010.

According to the petition, the five were accused of breaching their bail conditions, which banned provocative activity that could hurt the public’s feelings or damage a third party’s reputation.

The other red-shirt leaders said they accepted the verdict but would seek Jatuporn’s release.

“We will not appoint anyone to replace Jatuporn. Instead we will fight and wait until he returns,” key UDD figure Nattawut Saikua said.

The court did not revoke the bail for Nattawut, Weng Tojirakarn, Veerakarn Musikapong and Nisit Sinthupai, finding their public statements to be just expressions of opinion.

Before the ruling, Jatuporn defended himself by saying he had only voiced his opinion in line with his right to free expression. However, he accepted other facts presented in the case, including that he had appeared on TV programmes and given interviews.

“My speeches over the past two years did nothing to incite agitation. And if someone was defamed then they should have filed a petition against me,” he said.

Jatuporn added that he was prepared for the ruling because he had been jailed twice before. Upon arriving in court, the red-shirt leader showed a backpack containing clothes and other items.

When red-shirts, in the court room began to cry in response to the verdict, Nattawut urged them not to panic, saying he still believed in the judicial process. He called on the state to treat Jatuporn fairly.

Prawit, who is also a deputy prime minister and a key member of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order, should set a good example in line with the junta’s proposed 12 values, which encourage self-sufficiency, he said.

Sirsuwan called on the Ombudsman to determine whether the general’s conduct violated the Prime Minister’s Office’s Regulations on Political Office Holder’s Ethics.

Prawit and 37 security officials travelled to Hawaii at the end of last month to attend an informal meeting of Asean defence ministers at the invitation of US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter.

Srisuwan questioned why so many people had attended the informal meeting and why they had incurred unnecessary expenses.

He also criticised Prawit for saying on Monday that he was single and could see anybody he wanted after allegations were made related to a woman who joined the trip for unspecified reasons.

Srisuwan said Prawit, as a deputy prime minister, should set a good example for the public.

The petition was received by Danai Chantim, director of the Ombudsman’s Intake and Early Resolutions Bureau.

The Court however maintained bail for other red leaders.

The ruling against Jatuporn came after prosecutors of the Department of Special Investigation filed a petition calling on the court to revoke bail for five red-shirt leaders charged with terrorism in connection with red-shirt demonstration in 2010.

The DSI alleged that the suspects violated bail conditions, which ban inciting political movement, in their press interviews and TV programmes. Their activities were considered as inciting unrest and defaming some key junta figures.

After examining evidence such as recording of TV programmes recordings and media interviews, the court decided to revoke the bail for only Jatuporn, as it consideried his speeches “inappropriate”.

The four others were Nattawut Saikua , Weng Tojirakarn, Veerakarn Musikapong, and Nisit Sinthupai of United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship. The court considered that their activities and statements constituted expression of opinions.

After the ruling, Jatuporn was brought to Bangkok Remand Prison for detention.

Justice Minister Paiboon Koomchaya, who was to chair the meeting, said he did not know why Finance Ministry representatives failed to attend.

“I do not know why the ministry did not come. We could not carry on the meeting without a key agency such as the Finance Ministry,” Paiboon said after learning about the absence.

The meeting chairman and other participants waited for almost an hour in a meeting room at the Justice Ministry.

In his capacity as head of the Anti-Corruption Operation Centre (ACOC), Paiboon said yesterday that the next meeting had not yet been scheduled.

He added that the centre would ask the Finance Ministry permanent secretary in writing why his agency did not send representatives to attend yesterday’s meeting, which had been called at the instruction of the Cabinet.

He also said the ACOC was supposed to report to the prime minister at the weekly Cabinet meeting today about the results of the meeting.

“It had been widely known that there would be a meeting. The media also knew about this,” he said.

Paiboon’s attempt to convene the first meeting of relevant agencies was in response to a Cabinet resolution instructing the agencies under the ACOC to jointly investigate cases in connection with the corruption-plagued subsidy programme.

Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra has been held responsible for Bt35.7 billion, or 20 per cent of the estimated total damages of Bt178 billion, allegedly incurred by the rice-pledging schemeduring her administration. She is also charged with negligence of duty for allegedly failing to stop corruption involved in the scheme.

The Finance Ministry is supposed to issue an administrative order seeking civil damages of Bt35.7 billion from Yingluck, who has strongly opposed the measure. The ex-premier has called on the government to pursue a civil case against her in the Civil Court.

The ACOC is tasked with determining whether other people should be held responsible for the remaining 80 per cent of damages associated with the project.

The agencies that were supposed to attend the meeting were the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission, the Office of the Auditor-General, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Anti-Money Laundering Office, the Department of Special Investigation, the Finance and Commerce ministries, and the Prime Minister’s Office.

In his declaration of assets and liabilities submitted to the National Anti-Corruption Com-mission (NACC), Sommai stated that his assets exceeded debts by Bt105 million.

Some other ex-ministers also reported lower assets in their financial declarations.

Former information and communication technology minister Pornchai Rujiprapa reported a Bt12-million decline in his assets to Bt98.5 million. Amnuay Patise, who was agriculture minister, saw his wealth of Bt29.2 million fall by Bt270,000, while former public health minister Somsak Chunharas reported a decline of Bt1.3 million in his assets to Bt38.6 million.

The NACC yesterday disclosed details of the financial reports submitted by 19 former Cabinet members one year after they left office.

But many former Cabinet members of the post-coup government saw their assets rise one year after leaving their positions, according to their declarations to the anti-graft agency.

Former agriculture minister Pitipong Phuengbun na Ayutthaya reported the highest monetary gain of the former ministers, with most of the gains belonging to his wife. His assets exceeded debts by Bt1.07 billion, an increase of Bt270 million compared to the previous declaration filed shortly after leaving office.

Former information and communications technology minister Uttama Savanayana saw his and his wife’s assets increase by Bt38.4 million one year after leaving office, to Bt207 million, including Bt22 million from an inheritance he received after his mother’s death. When he assumed office in August 2015, he reported assets of Bt168.5 million.

In his financial declaration, former deputy prime minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula reported Bt1.33 billion in assets, an increase of Bt28 million one year after leaving office.

Other former Cabinet members reported increases of between Bt49,000 and a little over Bt4 million.

Cabinet members and their spouses, and their minor children, are required by NACC law to submit financial reports three times – when they assume office, when they leave office, and one year after leaving office.

The CDC will then get back to working on the contentious point concerning the introduction of primary voting in the new political party bill so that it can table the bill, along with Election Commission (EC)’s own bill governing itself, for the National Legislative Assembly to deliberate on shortly after the promulgation of the new charter, said CDC chief Meechai Ruchupan yesterday.

The charter is scheduled to be submitted at 8.59am at Government House.

“The CDC will hand over the charter draft to PM Prayut by ourselves as it’s critically important,” Meechai said.

Two weeks ago the Constitution Court ruled that the CDC’s first revision of the charter draft was against the will of the August 7 referendum on the charter.

The court also said the charter should be specific on the period of time that this would take place – when there was a Parliament in place and not after an MP election as first revised by the CDC.

The CDC finished revising the article on Friday.

Defendant lawyers have also found that given what they describe as the ambiguity of the Act, it is even harder to prove that their clients’ actions were in line with democratic principles.

“Section 61 of the Act allows the authorities to broadly interpret the provision and they can consider anyone as having committed wrongdoing against the law,” lawyer Pawinee Chumsri of TLHR said.

Pro-democracy observers and legal experts said the Referendum Act created a climate of fear after it was promulgated in mid-April.

Legal experts from non-profit group Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw) and former senators championing human rights believed the second paragraph of Section 61 of the Act was “ambiguous”, and it could lead to confusion and a climate of fear, under which people are afraid to express their views towards the draft. They petitioned the Ombudsman, which submitted their claim to the Constitutional Court. It asked the court to rule on whether the law violated the 2014 Interim Charter, which guarantees people’s right to expression.

Under the section, dissemination of “false”, “vulgar”, “provoking”, and “intimidating” messages relating to the referendum with the “intention” to incite unrest or influence voters to cast ballots either way was deemed a violation of the Act, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in jail, equivalent to a murder offence.

TLHR is working for 22 of the 44 defendants, while the other cases are being looked after by other groups of lawyers. The 22 are involved in five separate cases. These include the high-profile cases of the seven anti-coup student activists who distributed anti-draft pamphlets in Samut Prakan province, and the case of a Prachatai journalist arrested while working in Ratchaburi province, Pawinee said.

All of the defendants are on bail. Of the five cases, two have been forwarded to the Court of Justice by public prosecutors, the legal team revealed. “Most of them were arrested following the dissemination of pamphlets with information against the draft or for campaigning against the referendum,” Pawinee said.

The team of lawyers has learned that not all their clients’ charges relate to Section 61 of the Act. They have found that in some cases the defendants were arrested under Section 61 alone, while others were charged under Section 61 along with other offences relating to national security related laws such as the National Council for Peace and Order’s ban on political gatherings, the Computer Crime Act, and sedition in the Criminal Code.

Those charged under Section 61 will be tried in a civilian court, while those charged under “national security” laws face the further complication of being tried by a military tribunal, Pawinee explained.

Pawinee said the vagueness of the law made it difficult to fight the cases, and it was tougher for cases to be tried in a military court, where the trial process has been criticised for not being in line with international standards.

The lawyer said she and her lawyer colleagues would adhere to democratic principles to defend the cases because they believed the accused did not commit any offences. “They did not perpetrate [an offence], we know. They just expressed what they think about the charter draft.”

She said experts would testify that the defendants’ actions were legal and Section 61 was vague and did not qualify as a law due to its ambiguity.

Moreover, she added, the provision breached Section 7 of the Referendum Act which ensured people’s freedom of expression related to the referendum.

The lawyer team plans to ask the Attorney-General to withdraw the cases, arguing that the cases contributed nothing in terms of public benefit because the August 7 referendum is over and the Referendum Act only applied to that event.

Of all the cases handled by TLHR, Pawinee said, the accused would deny all the allegations and they would refuse to enter into a justice reconciliation process, an alternative to the punitive measure of a jail sentence.

Some observers view the legal fight as a gesture of disapproval over the referendum law. They observed that the law seemed to be set out to quell anti-charter campaigns, given that no pro-charter campaigners were charged.

“It’s like I am threatened when dozens of cameras turn to film me when I meet my friends who are, ‘unfortunately’, anti-coup activists,” said Taweesak, a reporter with the Prachatai online news agency. “My gut tells me that as a journalist, I have to distance myself from my fellows. Otherwise, I could be counted as an anti-junta activist.”

Taweesak, 24, was charged along with three pro-democracy activists from the New Democracy Movement (NDM) for allegedly breaching the ban on campaigning against the draft charter that voters approved in the August referendum. Section 61 of the Referendum Act, which was draft specifically to apply to the August 7 referendum, placed strict limitations on campaigning against the charter.

Several weeks ago, Taweesak and the activists he was charged with pledged to fight to prove their innocence after public prosecutors forwarded their case to the Ratchaburi Provincial Court in late August.

After being detained in July, the young reporter made headlines as the only journalist who had been arrested while performing his duty.

Hours before Taweesak was detained, he accompanied three anti-coup activists to Ratchaburi province, but he insists that he just wanted to cover events as the activists visited the Ban Pong police station to show moral support for 13 red-shirt activists who had been charged with violating the junta’s ban on political gatherings.

As the activists and Taweesak were about to leave the station, police searched their vehicle and found pamphlets described as “anti-charter” and “Vote No” stickers. All four were accused of disseminating “false”, “intense”, “provoking” or “intimidating” messages in order to incite unrest or influence voters, which was proscribed by Section 61 and carried penalties of up to 10 years in jail.

The four told police that they had not distributed the pamphlets, and Taweesak tried to show his media credentials, but to little avail.

“It seems the police did not know Prachatai. They did not believe me when I showed my press ID card and asked them call my office to verify my identity,” Taweesak told The Nation.

He was subsequently arrested along with the activists and all four were detained for a night before being temporarily released on bail.

Taweesak believes he has become a target following the high-profile arrest.

While professional journalists are subject to stricter scrutiny of their ethics in line with normal practices of the job, there has been speculation promulgated by supporters of the junta that Taweesak and his publication have lent support to the NDM. His trip to Ratchaburi has been characterised as a partisan act, not just a reporter doing his job.

As such allegations mounted, police searched Prachatai’s offices in Bangkok, apparently in a bid to find evidence that the publication was engaged in partisan or unethical behaviour.

In addition to the raid, Taweesak said police had been watching him and days after he was released on bail as he had spotted a distinctive police car parked opposite his apartment.

The authorities’ actions have raised new questions about the state’s arbitrary use of power to stalk and persecute citizens, Taweesak said.

“It just made me a bit nervous,” Taweesak said, but he added that the authorities would not intimidate him.

In addition to the scrutiny by security authorities, the media has also kept the reporter in the spotlight.

In the course of his work, Taweesak has attended events to cover the news and encountered friends who are members of the pro-democracy movement. While he has engaged in normal everyday conversations with his friends, his media colleagues immediately turned their cameras on him to make him the focus of the story instead of just another reporter covering his beat.

“I knew then that it would be in the news if I kept talking to me friends. What should I say to my friends who approached me and said hello? Should I say ‘get out man, don’t talk to me’?” asked the young reporter hesitantly.

Taweesak said his family and neighbours had also treated him differently, and sometimes negatively, since the case went public. His mother has even asked him to quit his job, saying she was worried because her son could face 10 years in prison if he is convicted.

“That penalty is incredibly high for such an offence. We did not commit any crime. Even I, who just went there to report, is one of the accused. How on earth does a reporter face a decade-long jail term because of his duty?” asked Taweesak.

Despite threats to his professional and personal life, the young reporter said the case had motivated him to report more on authorities’ abuse of power and irregularities in the rule of law. “People might think I would be more selective when choosing issues to cover. But the case has encouraged me to more intensively cover the state’s abuse of power.”