Student activists refuse reconciliation process, vow to fight their cases
Five defendants, including student activists from the New Democracy Movement (NDM) and a reporter from online news agency Prachatai, yesterday refused to enter the reconciliation process over their anti-charter campaign and pledged to fight the case, sayi
Also yesterday, their lawyer lodged a complaint asking the Office of the Attorney-General to withdraw the case.
The lawyer for the activists, Khoomklao Songsomboon, said the court went ahead with the process yesterday as scheduled, in which the defendants were asked if they would plead guilty before undergoing “reconciliatory measures”.
The process is widely known as a justice reconciliatory alternative to the punitive measure of a jail sentence.
However, the defendants stood firm in their decision to fight the case, saying they had done nothing wrong and would not accept the charge, as it might set a precedent that any actions unfavourable to the junta were illegal, a source said.
“We will fight the case to the end, as the defendants’ action is not illegal and did not breach Section 61,” the lawyer said.
The five defendants – NDM activists Pakorn Areekul, Anucha Rungmorakot, Anan Laoked, student red-shirt supporter Panuwat Songsawatchai, and reporter Taweesak Kerdpoka – were charged with violating Section 61 of the Referendum Act, which prohibits the dissemination of “false”, “vulgar”, “inciting” and “intimidating” information relating to the August charter referendum.
The defendants were intercepted in early July after police searched their car and found leaflets with anti-charter messages.
Reporter Taweesak said he was with the activists only to report on their activities.
Public prosecutors decided to indict the five in late August. Some “Vote No” stickers were also allegedly found in the car, though the defendants claimed that Election Commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said such stickers were not illegal.
Earlier in the day, their lawyer lodged a complaint with the Office of Attorney-General, asking the case be withdrawn as a “gesture of reconciliation”.
The complaint said the reporter was innocent because he was on duty when arrested. It also noted that the lawsuit did not contribute to public interest, as the expression of opinion on the referendum was part of people’s basic rights. Hence, the case should be withdrawn.
RELATED