Court jails Arnon Nampa and three others in Section 112 case; actress Sai acquitted

On February 20, 2026, at the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, the court delivered its verdict in a lèse-majesté case, black case number Aor.498/2567, in which prosecutors from Criminal Litigation Division 5 indicted protest leader Arnon Nampa and six others under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.

The seven defendants in the case were: Arnon Nampa (defendant 1), Parit Chiwarak, also known as “Penguin” (defendant 2), Somyot Prueksakasemsuk (defendant 3), Pimsiri Petchnamrob, also known as “Mook” (defendant 4), Natthida Meewangpla, also known as “Waen” (defendant 5), Promsorn Weerathamjaree, also known as “Fah” (defendant 6), and Intira Charoenpura, also known as “Sai”, a well-known actress (defendant 7).

The indictment also covered alleged offences relating to the King, Queen, heir apparent or Regent; offences against state security and causing public disorder; alleged violations of the Public Assembly Act, the Road Traffic Act, the Sound Amplifier Advertising Control Act, the Cleanliness and Orderliness Act, the Communicable Diseases Act, and the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations.

Prosecutors summarised that in November 2020, the defendants jointly organised a public assembly on Phahonyothin Road and outside the 11th Infantry Regiment in Bang Khen district without notifying officials as required by law. They said about 2,000 people attended and that officials ordered the rally to disperse, but it did not. Prosecutors alleged that during the rally the defendants gave speeches that led listeners to misunderstand the King and the monarchy.

All seven defendants denied the charges. During the trial, Parit (defendant 2) fled, and the Criminal Court ordered the case to be struck/severed in respect of defendant 2.

After examining evidence presented by both prosecution and defence, the Criminal Court ruled that defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 were guilty under Section 112 of the Criminal Code and under the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005), Sections 9 and 18.

The court also ruled that defendant 1 and defendants 3–6 were guilty under the Sound Amplifier Advertising Control Act B.E. 2493 (1950), Sections 4 and 9 (paragraph one), read together with Section 83 of the Criminal Code.

The court said the acts of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 constituted multiple separate offences, and ordered punishment on each count under Section 91 of the Criminal Code. It said the testimony of defendant 1 and defendants 3–6 was of some benefit to the proceedings, and reduced punishment by one-third under Section 78 of the Criminal Code.

For the Section 112 offence, the court sentenced defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 to two years and eight months’ imprisonment each. For jointly violating a regulation issued under Section 9 of the Emergency Decree, it fined defendant 1 and defendants 3–6 THB 10,000 each, and for jointly using a sound amplifier for advertising without permission, it imposed an additional administrative fine of THB 200 each on defendant 1 and defendants 3–6.

In total, the court sentenced defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 to two years and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of THB 10,200 each. Defendant 5 was fined THB 10,200. The court said that if the fine is not paid, enforcement will proceed under Sections 29 and 30 of the Criminal Code. If the administrative fine is not paid, enforcement will proceed under the Act on Fines as Civil Penalties B.E. 2565 (2022), Sections 30 and 31.

For defendant 1, the court ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to sentences in Criminal Court cases Black Case No. Aor.1629/2564 (Red Case No. Aor.4019/2567), Black Case No. Aor.2495/2564 (Red Case No. Aor.2841/2566), Black Case No. Aor.2804/2564 (Red Case No. Aor.25/2567), and Black Case No. Aor.2847/2564 (Red Case No. Aor.1863/2567) of the same court. For defendant 3, the court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to his imprisonment sentence in Black Case No. Aor.1522/2567 (Red Case No. Aor.3040/2566) of the same court.

The court dismissed other charges and requests. For defendant 7, Intira “Sai” Charoenpura, the court ruled the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to accept that she was a principal offender or supporter of the other defendants in organising the rally or giving speeches, and it therefore acquitted her.