BANGKOK: Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s lawyer has defended his application for amnesty, arguing that the cases covered by the request stemmed from political conflict and urging the authorities to interpret the law in line with its aim of reconciliation.
Winyat Chatmontree, Thaksin’s personal lawyer, said on Wednesday (Oct 14) that the former prime minister had exercised his legal right to ask the Committee on Promoting a Peaceful Society to determine whether he qualified for amnesty and release from liability under the Peaceful Society Promotion Act B.E. 2569 (2026).
Thaksin authorised his lawyers to submit the petition on Oct 8 through the joint service centre of the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office.
Winyat said the legislation was intended to help end conflicts arising from political events that had divided Thailand for more than a decade.
He argued that Thaksin was among those affected by politically motivated actions, saying policies implemented after being presented to Parliament and promised to voters ultimately became part of the political conflict that preceded the 2006 coup.
Lawyer challenges objections over corruption cases
The Peaceful Society Promotion Act grants amnesty for specified offences connected with political demonstrations or political expression, while excluding corruption and misconduct offences, Section 112 offences, and certain offences involving death, serious injury or private parties.
Winyat acknowledged that critics had argued Thaksin’s convictions could fall within the law’s exclusions, particularly those relating to corruption or misconduct.
He said critics had the right to express those views, just as Thaksin had the right to submit an application and seek a formal ruling from the committee.
Winyat, however, argued that the origins and political context of the cases should also be considered.
“Do not forget that accusations resulting from a seizure of power through a coup could be framed in many ways, whether as corruption and misconduct or as changes to laws,” he said.
He likened the cases to the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, arguing that actions originating from the coup and subsequent political processes should be examined in the context in which they arose.
That argument represents Thaksin’s legal team’s position and does not alter the existing court judgments or determine his eligibility for amnesty, which rests with the committee under the law.
Winyat accuses opponents of applying double standards
Winyat also criticised some opponents of Thaksin’s application, arguing that people who could themselves benefit from the amnesty law should not attempt to prevent others from seeking the same consideration.
He claimed that such opposition showed that Thailand had yet to move beyond the political divisions the legislation was designed to address.
The lawyer stressed that submitting the petition did not mean Thaksin was automatically entitled to amnesty.
The application asks the committee to consider the facts and the law and make a ruling on whether the former prime minister falls within its scope.
Winyat urged committee members to exercise their discretion fairly and take account of the political circumstances surrounding the cases rather than rely solely on the labels attached to individual offences.
He said restricting the rights of particular individuals without considering the broader context risked perpetuating political divisions.
Lawyer says Thaksin does not seek political comeback
Winyat said Thaksin’s application was not intended to restore qualifications allowing him to seek political office.
He said the former prime minister, now in his late 70s, wanted to live a normal life and regarded himself as having suffered from political conflict over many years.
The committee should therefore consider both the facts and the law while keeping the legislation’s reconciliation objective in mind, he argued.
“The application of the law should not begin and end simply with the words ‘cheating’ or ‘corruption’,” Winyat said.
He argued that the committee should also consider the political policies involved, the circumstances in which the cases arose and the intent of the Peaceful Society Promotion Act.
Section 112 case not included
Winyat said the amnesty application concerns cases in which judgments have already been delivered.
Thaksin’s separate case under Section 112 of the Criminal Code was not included in the petition, he said.
The Criminal Court acquitted Thaksin in that case in August 2025, but prosecutors subsequently appealed, leaving the case before the appeals process.
Section 112 offences are also expressly excluded from the Peaceful Society Promotion Act.
The Committee on Promoting a Peaceful Society must now determine whether Thaksin’s application and the cases it covers meet the requirements for amnesty under the legislation. - The Nation/ANN
