Court Delays Decision on PAD Protesters' Amnesty Petition
The Criminal Court postponed a hearing on whether 39 PAD protesters charged with rebellion could benefit from an amnesty law, as both sides are filing appeals under the Peace Promotion Act. Lawyer Sawat Charoenphon said the court must now wait for the Supreme Court’s decision, which has no fixed timeline. Former PAD leaders Kaweesorn Athiphoti and Somsak Kosaisuk attended the morning session but left after learning the delay.
On October 12, 2026, the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road was set to hear the order under the Peace Promotion Act in Black Case No. 247/2561, where the Specialized Public Prosecutor's Office 4 sued Suthep Thaugsuban and 39 other PAD leaders for rebellion related to the 2013‑2014 Bangkok shutdown protests. However, the court postponed the hearing because both the prosecution and the defendants are in the process of filing appeals (petitions) under the same act. Lawyer Sawat Charoenphon, representing the PAD leaders, said that after the Peace Promotion Act took effect in August, it provides an exemption for political rallies dating back to 2005, and he has filed petitions to dismiss all related cases. He explained that finished cases must be submitted to a designated committee, while ongoing cases like this one require a petition to the court for dismissal. Since many defendants have filed appeals, the court had initially accepted the appeal but later cancelled today’s hearing after verifying on October 6 that the appeal process was still underway. Sawat added that the case file must now be sent to the Supreme Court, as jurisdiction lies there, and that the appeal is not limited to Suthep alone—many of the 39 defendants have filed, with only six or seven still completing the process. He noted that, in principle, appeals are filed individually, but if the court finds the appeal pertains to the case as a whole, it can rule on defendants who did not file individually. Regarding the rescheduled hearing, Sawat said they must wait for the Supreme Court’s order, which has no set timetable, and that he is coordinating with all 39 defendants, including Kaweesorn and Somsak, though some may be missed due to changed phone numbers and Line contact issues.
