The judicialisation of politics, or judicial activism, refers to circumstances where the judicial branch becomes an active player in politics, interfering in the affairs of executive or legislative branches. Judicialisation also refers to circumstances that courts are used as a mechanism of the ruling power.
(Photo from Pantip)
This circumstances have become one of the significant factors in Thai politics since the late King Bhumibol’s 2006 address to judges of the Supreme Court and the Administrative Court. The speech concluded firmly that it is the duty of the judicial branch, not the King, to resolve crisis and advance democracy whenever a political deadlock occurs.
“The duty of judges and those who are involved in administration is very broad. I’m afraid that you might think the duties of the Administrative Court have a limited boundary. Actually, it is very broad,” read the King’s speech to Administrative Court judges.
Thai courts last week had shown their commitment to the late King’s speech since there were a series of judgements and prosecutions which could be categorised as judicialisation. The first case reflected the role of the justice system as a silencing mechanism under the junta regime.
On 28 August, the Criminal Court sentenced an embattled anti-junta politician Watana Muangsook to two months imprisonment for contempt of the court with two years suspended term. He was landed with the charge after he told the media through Line Chat application to interview him in front of the court building on 28 August after he submitted a petition on his sedition lawsuit.
The court ruled that Watana has violated the court since he used the court’s building without a prior permission, adding that he should have known about this regulation as he used to be a lawyer himself. Though Watana argued that he did not contact the media himself, the court dismissed his claim.
The court’s fairness was questioned after Watana posted on his facebook pages pictures of celebrities and politicians who gave an interview in front of the court building but have not been accused of contempt of court.
This is a second times of this month that Watana was charged with contempt of court. On 21 August, the Criminal Court sentenced him to one year in prison and a 500 baht fine for broadcasting through Facebook live from the court premises about another case.
Since the 2014 coup, various people have been accused of contempt of court for criticising and campaigning against the court verdicts. Recently, an anti-corruption activist Srisuwan Janya has asked for a donation after being fined 700,000 baht for committing contempt of court 14 times.
According to Article 198 of the Criminal Code, people who are guilty of contempt of court can face up to 7 years in jail or up to 14,000 baht fine, or both. Such legal immunity has prevented courts form criticism and eventually leads to more intense judicialisation.
In addition to suppressing opposers, Thai courts are also criticised for lacking political impartiality. The last week case that represented such criticism is the dismissal of the charge against former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, and Suthep Thaugsuban, his former deputy, over the bloody crackdown against the red-shirt protesters in 2010.
The two had been accused of murder by the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) for authorising military and police officers to reclaim several venues in the Bangkok city centre from United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) demonstrators, the main red shirt faction, in April and May 2010.
However, on 31 August, the Supreme Court confirmed a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal and dismissed murder charges against the two. Citing an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the court ruled that the 2010 protest was not peaceful and that there were armed militants among the demonstrators. It was therefore reasonable for the defendants to authorise armed personnel to reclaim the protest site.
This is another case about the 2010 crackdown that marked the role of judicialisation in maintaining Thailand’s impunity culture. Over a hundred people were killed during the crackdown but neither authorities nor government officials have been ruled accountable for the killings.
In some cases, there were solid evidence that the killing bullets were fired from the authorities’ side but the court ruled that person who fired the bullets are unidentified, thus no one has ever been punished.
In the case of Suthep and Abhisit, the judicialisation is even worse as individuals who filed a complaint against the two also face a prosecution. On 9 June 2017, the Supreme Court accepted a lawsuit against Tharit Pengdit, former Director-General of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), and three other persons who pressed murder charges against Abhisit and Suthep.
This is despite the fact that the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal dismissed the charges against the four.
The four were accused of corruption and propagating false accusations against Abhisit and Suthep, claiming that the DSI did not have the authority to investigate the crackdown in the first place.