On August 22, 2025, as the morning heat shimmered over Bangkok, crowds began to gather outside the Ratchada Criminal Court. Among them were the unmistakable red shirts—supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—who had come to lend moral support as he faced a high-profile verdict in a case that had riveted the nation. The stakes were nothing short of Thaksin’s freedom and reputation, as he stood accused under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, the country’s strict lèse-majesté law, and the Computer Crimes Act, stemming from remarks he made during a 2015 interview with South Korean media.
According to Business Today, Thaksin arrived at the courthouse accompanied by his daughter, Pintongta Shinawatra Kunakornwong. The pair waved to the assembled press before heading inside. The mood outside was tense but hopeful, with supporters clutching banners and chanting encouragement. Security was tight, and the court had issued strict protocols for the media: journalists were required to obtain special permits, wear temporary press badges, and were only permitted to take photos or conduct interviews in designated areas. The courtroom itself was off-limits to all but those directly involved in the case, as the proceedings were held behind closed doors—a measure the court said was necessary given the sensitive nature of the charges.
The case, officially listed as No. 1860/2567, had been brought by public prosecutors from the Office of Criminal Litigation 8. The allegations centered on Thaksin’s 2015 interview, in which he was accused of making statements deemed insulting to the monarchy and importing false information into a computer system. The trial had seen a parade of high-profile witnesses, including legal scholars and politicians such as Thongthong Chandrangsu, former Dean of Law at Chulalongkorn University, and Wissanu Krea-ngam, former Deputy Prime Minister. Thaksin himself attended every hearing, underscoring the gravity of the situation and his commitment to defending himself in person.
At precisely 10:40 AM, the verdict was announced: Thaksin Shinawatra was acquitted of all charges. The news rippled through the crowd outside, sparking cheers, tears, and a palpable sense of relief among his supporters. As reported by Business Today, the court’s decision marked a dramatic conclusion to a case that had drawn intense scrutiny both domestically and internationally, given Thailand’s history of using lèse-majesté laws to silence political dissent.
Prominent politicians and family members had come to the courthouse to show their support. Former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin’s brother-in-law, was among those present. Speaking before the verdict, Somchai told reporters, "I personally believe Thaksin is loyal and holds the institution in the highest regard. As for the court’s decision, we must wait and see, and we respect the judicial process." He added, "We cannot interfere with the court’s deliberations. Whatever the outcome, it is part of the justice system." Somchai also addressed concerns about other ongoing high-profile cases, including those involving current Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, emphasizing that as leaders, their duty is to act in the best interests of the nation and its sovereignty.
The trial itself was emblematic of Thailand’s fraught political landscape, where legal battles often intersect with broader struggles over power, legitimacy, and the limits of free expression. The secrecy of the proceedings—no outsiders allowed, no unauthorized photos, and a strict media cordon—was a stark reminder of the sensitivities at play when the monarchy is involved. Yet, the court’s decision to acquit Thaksin stood out as a rare moment of judicial independence in a country where such outcomes are far from guaranteed.
The day’s events unfolded against a backdrop of other political turbulence. On the same day, the Constitutional Court delivered another landmark ruling—case no. 1860/2567—ordering the dissolution of the Future Forward Party and banning 112 of its members from political participation for a decade. The case, filed by the Election Commission under law B.E. 2558, was announced publicly, sending shockwaves through Thailand’s political establishment. The ruling underscored the precariousness of opposition parties in Thailand’s often turbulent democracy and drew renewed attention to the judiciary’s role in shaping the nation’s political future.
Meanwhile, in the halls of government, debates raged over the controversial memorandum of understanding (MOU) 43-44, which has been the subject of intense scrutiny and political maneuvering. Deputy Prime Minister and acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai addressed the issue, stating, "The government has nothing hidden and wants to do what is best for the country. These are matters that must be discussed among those directly involved. Anything that benefits or does not benefit the country must be carefully considered." When pressed on whether the government intended to revoke MOU 43-44, Phumtham replied, "Let’s not make any premature decisions. If you want deeper details, come and ask, but don’t ask in front of the media." He reiterated that the government’s guiding principle was to protect national sovereignty and the interests of the Thai people.
Phumtham also addressed concerns about compensation for residents affected by recent clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border. He emphasized that existing regulations would be followed, but that the government was open to revising compensation if it was clear that damages resulted from cross-border violence. "This is just a small point," he said, "but if it’s clear that the damage is from external conflict, we will take care of it. There are hundreds or thousands of cases we must address, so we must consider and act according to regulations." Phumtham expressed confidence that the current government had done more than any previous administration to address such issues, but acknowledged that significant challenges remained.
Elsewhere, Speaker of the House Wan Muhamad Noor Matha weighed in on the previous day’s abrupt adjournment of a parliamentary session before the Future Forward Party’s motion on MOU 43-44 could be debated. "This was a miscommunication," he admitted, explaining that the relevant committee was unprepared to report, leading the presiding officer to believe the agenda was finished. "This is a lesson for both sides’ whips to coordinate more clearly in the future. Next week, the issue can be considered." He dismissed speculation that the adjournment was a political ploy, insisting that the presiding officer acted independently and with integrity.
Wan Muhamad Noor also apologized for the confusion and pledged to improve communication in future sessions. He expressed confidence in the neutrality and professionalism of the parliamentary leadership, stating, "I believe in Mr. Chaiya’s ability to act impartially."
As the day drew to a close, the acquittal of Thaksin Shinawatra and the dissolution of the Future Forward Party underscored the deep currents roiling Thai politics. For Thaksin’s supporters, the verdict was a moment of vindication; for the opposition, the court’s actions highlighted the persistent fragility of democratic institutions. As Thailand looks ahead, the events of August 22, 2025, will likely be remembered as a turning point—one that revealed both the enduring power of the judiciary and the resilience of those determined to shape the country’s future.
