Justice Minister Says Thaksin Amnesty Petition Fails Legal Criteria
Justice Minister Ruttaphol Naowarat said former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's amnesty petition does not meet legal criteria due to outstanding corruption and Article 112 charges. The National Reconciliation Committee has not yet received the case, and any decision must follow the 2026 Amnesty Act. Thaksin retains the right to challenge a rejection in court.
Justice Minister Pol. Lt. Gen. Ruttaphol Naowarat gave an interview at Maladhathip Hall before the Cabinet meeting on November 3 regarding former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's submission of an amnesty petition to the National Reconciliation Committee. He said the main committee has not yet received the matter for consideration, and proceedings must follow the framework of the 2026 National Reconciliation Act, which specifies detailed criteria.
When asked whether Thaksin's case qualifies for amnesty, Ruttaphol replied that no report has been received yet because the subcommittee reviewing the submission has not concluded its work or reported to the main committee. If it proceeds, it will likely be discussed at a committee meeting.
Asked whether political deals influenced this amnesty bid, Ruttaphol said that was unlikely because the law's substance is already clear. When pressed on whether corruption and Article 112 cases disqualify a petitioner, he answered "Yes."
Regarding Thaksin's lawyers arguing the cases stemmed from a coup, Ruttaphol said it depends on the subcommittee's consideration, but he personally believes legal principles must be the primary basis.
Asked if this effectively closes the door on Thaksin's amnesty, Ruttaphol said the subcommittee must first determine the conditions, and clarity will improve once the matter reaches the main committee. On whether Thaksin could sue the committee if deemed ineligible, Ruttaphol said he does not know where such a suit would be filed, but as a committee member he views it as a legal right that can be exercised regardless of eligibility, though the courts would ultimately decide.
