Court acquits Thanathorn in ‘royal vaccine’ case, says criticism targeted PM
The Criminal Court has acquitted Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit in a Section 112 case over his Covid-19 vaccine livestream, ruling that his criticism was directed at the prime minister’s vaccine management.
The Criminal Court has acquitted Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit in the “royal vaccine” case, ruling that his comments were direct criticism of the prime minister.
On May 28, 2026, at 9am, the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road scheduled the reading of its verdict in courtroom 814 in a royal defamation case, Black Case No. Aor. 875/2022.
The case was filed by prosecutors from the Office of Criminal Litigation 5 against Thanathorn, chairman of the Progressive Movement, on charges of defaming, insulting or threatening the King under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, as well as offences under the Computer Crime Act.
The case stemmed from a Facebook livestream on January 18, 2021, in which Thanathorn criticised the government’s procurement of Covid-19 vaccines under the topic “Royal Vaccine: Who Benefits, Who Loses?”
Prosecutors alleged that the livestream distorted information, misled the public and referred to the monarchy in connection with Siam Bioscience and vaccine procurement. Thanathorn denied the charges, fought the case and was granted bail.
Thanathorn appeared at the Criminal Court today to hear the verdict. As he entered the court building, reporters asked how confident he was. He turned, smiled, raised his fist and said he was “in good spirits” before walking inside.
The court’s ruling stated that, after examining the evidence, it found the livestream referred to Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, then prime minister, and his administration of Covid-19 vaccines. It was not criticism or insult directed at the monarchy as alleged in the indictment.
Regarding references to Siam Bioscience, the court found that the statements were factual as Thanathorn had stated and did not constitute defamation.
The court also considered comments questioning whether the prime minister could take responsibility for vaccine management, given that any failure would harm the public.
It ruled that Thanathorn’s actions did not constitute insulting or threatening the King under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, nor did they violate the Computer Crime Act.
The court therefore dismissed the case.
