BANGKOK, THAILAND – Thailand’s Attorney General has ordered an appeal against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s acquittal in a high‑profile lese‑majesté case, defying the recommendation of his own expert panel.
Attorney General pushes appeal in Section 112 case
At the center of the dispute is Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code, which criminalizes statements deemed insulting to the monarchy. The prosecution is based on an interview Thaksin gave to South Korean broadcaster KBS in 2015.
The Criminal Court in Bangkok acquitted the 76‑year‑old on 22 August 2025, ruling that the evidence did not prove a direct insult to the royal institution. Judges found the contested video segment referred to specific political actors rather than the monarchy, and they questioned the credibility of key prosecution witnesses, some of whom had opposed Thaksin publicly for decades and were deemed biased.
Despite this, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has now ordered an appeal. The move was approved by Attorney General Itthiporn Kaewtip, who holds final decision‑making authority. The step is particularly sensitive because Itthiporn previously chaired the OAG’s specialized review commission for Section 112 cases while serving as deputy attorney general. In September 2025 that commission voted 8–2 to recommend against an appeal, citing weak evidence.
Itthiporn nonetheless used his discretionary powers in what is treated as an overseas‑related case and concluded that Thaksin’s remarks amounted to a criminal offense requiring reassessment by the Court of Appeal. The deadline for filing was twice extended to 21 November 2025, and the order has been forwarded to the Office of the Criminal Case Prosecutor 8, which is to submit the appeal formally.
Family describes Thaksin as ‘devastated’
As the legal move sparked public debate, Thaksin’s daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra visited him at Bangkok’s Klong Prem Prison, where the former leader is serving a separate corruption sentence.
She described a bleak atmosphere within the family.
“He is devastated and hurt by the decision of the Attorney General to appeal in the Section 112 case,”
said Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Thaksin’s daughter.
She added that the family would continue to fight for justice if it could not be achieved through legal channels. Thaksin’s son Panthongtae Shinawatra also voiced dismay, saying the news had shaken the family mentally, while expressing gratitude for public support.
For Thaksin personally, the appeal prolongs legal uncertainty. Because prisoners facing additional pending criminal proceedings are generally not eligible for early release, critics argue the move could effectively extend his time behind bars, just as he was expected to become eligible for conditional freedom.
Deepening political divide over Section 112
The OAG’s decision has sharpened already entrenched political divides. Thaksin, who returned from years of self‑imposed exile in 2024, remains a central figure in Thailand’s power structure and is seen as an influential adviser to the Pheu Thai‑led government.
Supporters of Thaksin and other critics of the appeal see the decision as politically motivated interference in the judicial process. They highlight the reversal of the internal expert panel’s advice and suggest that external pressure may have influenced the Attorney General. In their view, the move underscores how political conflict can spill into the courts and use Section 112 as a tool.
Conservative voices, by contrast, have welcomed the appeal as a reinforcement of the rule of law. The secretary of the Democrat Party, Ramet Rattanachewang, praised the step as a boost to legal certainty, describing it as good news at the turn of the year and arguing that such a significant case should be examined by higher courts to safeguard the integrity of the law.
Supporters of the appeal insist it is not about political revenge but about legal clarity and justice, and say the proceedings should define how far freedom of expression can go in Thailand when it intersects with legal protections for the monarchy.
Implications for free speech and future cases
Legal observers say the appeal has ramifications well beyond the fate of a single politician. The Court of Appeal’s eventual ruling could effectively redraw the boundaries of public discourse in Thailand, particularly regarding political criticism and its potential interpretation as an attack on the monarchy.
In a political system marked by long‑running confrontation between rival camps, the Thaksin case has become another test of how the judiciary, politics, and the monarchy interact. The outcome is expected to influence how future Section 112 cases are handled, how much space remains for political speech, and how Thailand is viewed internationally on issues of freedom of expression.
No date has yet been set for the Court of Appeal’s decision. Until then, the case is likely to fuel tensions between those demanding strict legal enforcement and those warning of political interference, keeping the Attorney General’s office at the center of a conflict that reaches far beyond the walls of Klong Prem Prison.