Bangkok: Pheu Thai Party has expressed its intention to use legal avenues to address the rice pledging case involving former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. The party plans to present the sale of 18.9 million tons of rice as new evidence to the Administrative Court, seeking a reconsideration of the case’s verdict. This move comes ahead of a proposed discussion on amnesty law scheduled for July 9, following the parliament’s opening.

According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Danupon Punnakan, the Pheu Thai Party spokesman, conveyed the party’s support and concern for Ms. Yingluck, stating that the case, which dates back over a decade, was a significant factor in the 2014 coup d’©tat that ousted her from power. He emphasized that the party respects the judicial process and will engage all available legal channels to contest the case. The sale of rice last year, which has not yet been considered, is viewed by the party as pivotal evidence for the court’s reconsideration under Section 75 of the Administrative Court Establishment and Administrative Litigation Procedure Act B.E. 2542.

Mr. Danupon highlighted the political dynamics during the coup, noting the leader’s use of Article 44 in relation to the rice pledging scheme. The Pheu Thai Party intends to leverage this context and the new evidence in their legal strategy. Following the verdict, the party faced scrutiny over its stance, with Mr. Danupon defending the rice pledging policy as a cornerstone of their 2011 election campaign and a crucial initiative for farmers, asserting the need to clarify the facts and perceived injustices.

Addressing the ongoing debate about Section 112, Mr. Danupon mentioned the upcoming parliamentary session on July 3, with discussions on the amnesty law set for July 9. He refrained from engaging in political debates outside parliament, emphasizing that such matters should be resolved through formal parliamentary procedures.

Despite differing legal opinions regarding the admissibility of the rice sale as evidence, Mr. Danupon maintained that it is ultimately up to the court to decide. He expressed the party’s commitment to presenting comprehensive evidence and seeking judicial leniency.