Posts Tagged ‘criminal defamation laws’

Prime Minister should refrain from filing criminal lawsuit against human rights defender Yingcheep Atchanont

August 12, 2026

© iLaw

On 22 July 2026, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul announced that he would file a criminal defamation complaint against Yingcheep Atchanont, the director of the Thai non-governmental organisation Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), an FIDH member organisation, over allegations linking the Prime Minister to irregularities in the election of the 200-member Senate, which was held between 9 and 26 June 2024. On 4 August 2026the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, urge Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to refrain from filing a criminal defamation complaint against Thai human rights defender Yingcheep Atchanont, in connection with his legitimate work of monitoring public affairs and promoting democratic accountability.

The legal action stemmed from Yingcheep Atchanont’s submission of a petition to the opposition coalition in the House of Representatives on 21 July 2026, seeking a parliamentary examination of allegations that nine politicians from the Bhumjaithai Party, including Prime Minister Anutin, five cabinet ministers, and three senior figures, were involved in vote manipulation during the June 2024 Senate election.

According to iLaw’s investigation, evidence and witness statements suggested irregularities including candidate arrangements, the distribution of voting instructions, and the provision of financial incentives to candidates by networks linked to the Bhumjaithai Party, across different stages of the election process, which raised serious concerns over the integrity and transparency of the polls.

The Observatory recalls that since its founding in 2009, iLaw has played a prominent role in advancing democratic participation, freedom of expression, and a fair justice system in Thailand. The organisation has documented the impact of repressive laws and decrees adopted following the 2006 and 2014 military coups d’état and campaigned for their reform through public engagement and online advocacy. It has also worked to support citizen participation in legislative and constitutional reform processes, particularly through campaigns to collect signatures for proposed legislation and initiatives to amend Thailand’s military-backed 2017 Constitution. In addition, iLaw has contributed to strengthening electoral transparency by systematically documenting voting irregularities and mobilising citizens to participate in election observation.

The June 2024 Senate election gave rise to allegations of systemic fraud and vote-buying. Under the new selection system, more than 40,000 candidates voted among themselves through multiple rounds of selection at the district, provincial, and national levels to determine the 200-member Senate. The results led to public scrutiny particularly due to the disproportionately high number of successful candidates from provinces where the Bhumjaithai Party enjoyed strong electoral support.

A separate investigation conducted jointly by the Election Commission (EC) and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) was concluded in July 2025. The investigation found sufficient evidence to prosecute 229 individuals, including 138 senators and 91 political figures associated with the Bhumjaithai Party, in connection with fraudulent practices during the June 2024 Senate election, in violation of the 2018 Organic Act on the Acquisition of Senators. However, in March 2026, an EC subcommittee voted to overturn the earlier finding. The conflicting recommendations were subsequently submitted to the EC for a final decision, which is expected in late August 2026.

The Observatory denounces the criminal lawsuits against Yingcheep, which appear to be in retaliation against the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in international human rights law, in particular in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a state party.

The Observatory calls upon the Thai authorities to ensure that all complaints are dropped and urges them to take concrete steps towards the decriminalisation of defamation under Articles 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code, which are used to intimidate, silence, and harass human rights defenders in Thailand.

https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/thailand/thailand-prime-minister-should-refrain-from-filing-criminal-lawsuit

Andy Hall finally acquitted of criminal defamation in Thailand

July 9, 2020

This case has dragged on [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/andy-hall/] but has finally come to a good end thanks to strong international pressure. The Supreme Court’s decision on June 30, 2020 to acquit Andy Hall for criminal defamation and computer crimes offenses was welcome news, finally bringing an end to a seven-year legal battle that represented just how far some companies are willing to go to silence activists who expose modern slavery.

Hall’s case even attracted the attention of UN human rights experts, who criticized the lawsuits brought against him, saying that they were an example of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs related to defamation have been increasingly used in recent years in Thailand by companies linked to forced labor and labor rights violations as a means to silence critics. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/06/08/defending-defenders-challenging-malicious-lawsuits-in-southeast-asia/]

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Andy Hall said: “I welcome today’s final ruling in this case. But after years of ongoing judicial harassment that has taken a heavy toll on me, my family and my colleagues, the verdict does not feel like a victory. My activism for over a decade in Thailand was intended only to promote and uphold the fundamental rights of millions of migrant workers in the country.

These workers continue to find themselves without a voice in high risk situations of forced labor and subject to systemic human and labor rights violations in global supply chains. I remain open to reconciliation to put an end once and for all to this continued irrational cycle of litigation against me and my colleagues that remain in Thailand.

https://www.freedomunited.org/our-impact/drop-the-charges-against-andy-hall-now/?trk_msg=LQOEF4L1AQI4V652RVLH5UQ0CS&trk_contact=T46EA44M5JFSJ08T6GG4H5M16S&trk_sid=EU95E36VVONCSO7PCAVA00BB90&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Read+the+field+report&utm_campaign=FU-EN-8JULY-ANDY-HALL-WIN-prospect&utm_content=FU-EN-8JULY-ANDY-HALL-WIN-prospect

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-870260

Thailand: Amnesty and UN Rapporteur agree on misuse of lese-majeste

December 23, 2019

Thailand: Amnesty International published a special 30-page report “They Cannot Keep Us Quiet” on Wednesday 11 December 2019. It is sub-titled “The criminalization of activists, human rights defenders and others in Thailand.” It was released hours after David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, after meetings on Tuesday launched a scathing attack on what he called misuse of laws prohibiting defamation of the monarchy. “Thai authorities are waging a campaign to criminalise and punish dissent by targeting civil society and political activists who peacefully exercise their rights to freedom of expression and assembly,” the Amnesty report said.

Mr Kaye said at a media briefing: “Lese-majeste provisions have no place in a democratic country. I urge the authorities of Thailand to take steps to revise the country’s Criminal Code and to repeal the law that establishes a justification for criminal prosecution.

And both singled out the refusal of the regime to back bail for dissident Jatupat Boonpatararaksa, better known as Pai Daodin.

https://wellstonjournal.com/un-envoy-amnesty-denounce-regime-ways.html

https://wellstonjournal.com/un-envoy-amnesty-denounce-regime-ways.html

Ray of hope: Lesotho court takes stand against defamation of HRDs

May 23, 2018

On Monday 21 May 2018, the Lesotho High Court (sitting as a Constitutional Court), in a unanimous judgment declared the offence of criminal defamation unconstitutional with retrospective effect. The case of Basildon Peta v Minister of Law, Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights and 2 Others. The case was brought by Basildon Peta, the owner and publisher of the Lesotho Times. He was charged with the offence of criminal defamation after the Lesotho Times in 2016 published a satirical column (the Scrutator) relating to the then-Commander of the Lesotho Defence Force, Tlali Kamoli.

Section 104 of the Penal Code provides that a person who publishes defamatory matter concerning another person commits the offence of criminal defamation. Mr Peta submitted that the offence constituted an unjustifiable limitation of the right to freedom of expression. The Court in its judgment confirmed that the onus of proving that the impairment of a right was justified rests on the government. Of concern to the Court was the over breadth of the offence, with a charge being possible even if no person other than the complainant became aware of the supposedly defamatory statement, and with the offence further extending to defamation of deceased persons. The Court further held that the defence that a defamatory publication was for the public benefit was too vague and could lead, as in this instance, to cases where satirical comments are criminalised.

The Court held that criminalising defamation has a chilling effect on journalistic freedom of expression, resulting in self-censorship by journalists and a less informed public. The Court cited with approval calls by the African Commission and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression which encouraged states to repeal criminal defamation laws. The Court’s judgment follows in the footsteps of other African courts, including the ECOWAS Court, the Zimbabwe Constitutional Court and the Kenya High Court, which recently declared that the offence of criminal defamation violated the right to freedom of expression.

We commend the Lesotho Constitutional Court bench for its brave decision, which makes a significant contribution to freedom of expression jurisprudence in the region,” said Anneke Meerkotter, Litigation Director of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre. “We are concerned by the ongoing use of criminal defamation laws against journalists and human rights defenders and hope that this decision will also send a message to other governments to reform their laws.

The judgment is available online at http://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/2018/02/13/lesotho-challenging-the-offence-of-criminal-defamation/

http://allafrica.com/stories/201805221085.html

Will Angola persists with defamation charges against ‘Blood Diamonds’ journalist today?

May 28, 2015

Investigative journalist Rafael Marques de Morais is due to appear in court today in Angola for sentencing. On 25 May the Public Prosecutor in his trial requested that the judge convict him of criminal defamation and sentence him to 30 days in prison, only four days after the announcement of the Lunda Provincial Tribunal that charges against Mr. Marques de Morais had been dropped!“ After more than two years of continuous judicial harassment, solely based on Mr. Marques de Morais human rights activities, this last decision makes yet another mockery of justice in Angola ”, said Karim Lahidji, FIDH President.

[Mr. Marques de Morais is a well-known Angolan journalist and editor of an Angolan anti-corruption website,who has been facing continuous judicial harassment since the publication in 2011, of his book, “Blood Diamonds : Corruption and Torture in Angola”, in which he documents and denounces the corruption, allegations of homicides, torture, forced eviction of civilian settlements and intimidation of inhabitants of the diamond-mining areas of Angola’s Lundas region by some state agents and business entrepreneurs.]

He is same Rafael Marques de Morais, who was quoted in my post of 19 December 2013 about Mariah Carey performing for the President that “the presidency was happy to cover the capital in posters of her performance, but on November 23 the presidential guards murdered an activist in custody for posting fliers. Those fliers were a peaceful protest of the murder of other activists disappeared by state police. How does Mariah Carey, the artist and humanist, who so often speaks about human rights, feel about that?…..The Angolan Red Cross gala raised $65,000. Mariah Carey’s transportation alone cost several times that number. It’s absolutely shameless,” added de Morais. [from https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/mariah-carey-needs-better-informed-staff-and-donate-her-1-million-fee-to-human-rights-defenders-in-angola/#more-4223] Read the rest of this entry »

Southeast Asian Voices of HRDs being stifled

September 12, 2013

As concerns grow in Southeast Asia over the use of national security, anti-terrorist and defamation laws to limit freedom of expression on the Internet, a coalition of international and local NGOs and activists from Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia urged governments to stop using vague legislation based on ill-defined concepts such as “national security”, “sovereignty” or “lèse-majesté” to intimidate, harass and imprison independent voices. Speaking at an event in Geneva, which coincides with the 24th session of the UN Human Rights Council, FIDH, IFEX, Article 19 and PEN International united to call for the urgent revision of these laws to bring them into line with international human rights standards. Independent and dissenting voices, including bloggers and netizens, journalists, activists and human rights defenders, have increasingly been subjected to repression in Southeast Asia.

A lot more detail in  Human Rights Council : Stifled Southeast Asian Voices: NGOs Unite … – FIDH.

Defamation charges against Hall will chill labor rights in Thailand says Human Rights Watch

April 11, 2013

Proceedings in this case, brought by a fruit processing company before the South Bangkok criminal court, are scheduled for today April 11, 2013. The charges stem from a defamation complaint filed on February 14 by the Natural Fruit Company Limited against Andy Hall for an investigative report about serious labor rights violations at the company’s factory in Prachaub Kirikhan province. If convicted, Hall faces up to two years in prison. He is also facing civil damages of 300 million baht  (US$10 million).“Criminal charges against Andy Hall reflect an attempt to stifle serious reporting on alleged abuses by one of Thailand’s top fruit processors,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Freedom to investigate abuses by corporations is critical to ensure compliance and accountability under Thai law and human rights standards.” The Natural Fruit Company, using a workforce comprised primarily of migrant workers from Burma, asserted that Hall defamed and damaged the company by “broadcasting false statements to public media.”HRW_logo

Hall’s report, “Cheap has a high price: Responsibility problems relating to international private label products and food production in Thailand,” researched and written with the Finnish nongovernmental organization FinnWatch, investigated the production practices of private label juices and fruit sold in Finland, including by Natural Fruit Company Limited. The report alleged that Natural Fruit Company Limited had committed serious labor rights abuses, including poor working conditions, unlawfully low wages, confiscation of workers’ official documents, use of child labor, and excessive overtime. Human Rights Watch, along with an increasing number of states and international authorities, believes that criminal defamation laws should be abolished, as criminal penalties are always disproportionate punishments for reputational harm and infringe on free expression.  Criminal defamation laws are open to easy abuse, resulting in very harsh consequences, including imprisonment. As repeal of criminal defamation laws in an increasing number of countries shows, such laws are not necessary for the purpose of protecting reputations. “The prosecution of Andy Hall strikes at the very core of efforts by human rights defenders to end pervasive abuses of workers in Thailand’s export industry,” Adams said. “International companies sourcing from Thailand should raise concerns with the government that using criminal charges to silence rights critics could adversely affect the overall reputation of Thailand’s major export sectors. The Thai government should welcome efforts to protect worker’s rights, not penalize them.”

via Thailand: Defamation Charges Chill Labor Rights Inquiries | Human Rights Watch.

also: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Company-should-drop-case-against-British-rights-ac-30203542.html