Verdict Summary for Article 112 Case #Mob29Nov: Four Activists Sentenced and One Acquitted

On February 20, 2026, the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road delivered a landmark verdict involving seven activists and citizens stemming from the "Demilitarize Thai Feudalism" rally, also known as #Mob29Nov. The demonstration took place in front of the 11th Infantry Regiment on November 29, 2020. The defendants in this case included Arnon Nampa, "Penguin" Parit Chiwarak, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, Pimsiri Petchnamrob, "Wan" Natthatida Meewangpla, Phromsorn Veerathamjaree, and "Sai" Inthira Charoenpura. They faced ten distinct charges, primarily under Article 112 (Lèse-majesté), Article 116 (Sedition), and the Emergency Decree. Regarding Parit Chiwarak, the court previously ordered his case to be temporarily struck from the list as he did not attend court during the witness examination phase.

Courtroom 801 was densely packed with members of the public, embassy representatives, politicians, and human rights organizations. Before the verdict began, a significant legal dispute arose. The defense challenged the prosecution’s eleventh-hour motion to amend the indictment, filed just two days before the judgment. The amendment sought to reclassify Phromsorn’s status as a co-offender alongside defendants one through five. Arnon Nampa and the defense counsel argued that such an amendment is prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code since the witness examination had already concluded, and it placed the defendants at a severe disadvantage. Despite the court’s initial attempt to proceed with the reading, the defense insisted on submitting a formal written objection. Ultimately, the court permitted this before reading the full verdict at the explicit request of the defendants and the gallery.

In the judgment, the court analyzed various charges in detail. Regarding the Public Assembly Act, the court ruled that the defendants were not guilty under this law because the Emergency Decree was in effect at the time, which legally superseded the Public Assembly Act. However, the court found the demonstration to be a violation of the Emergency Decree. It cited the presence of over 2,000 participants in crowded conditions and a lack of sufficient disease prevention measures. Conversely, the court acquitted the defendants of the Article 116 and Article 215 (rioting) charges, noting that the assembly was peaceful, no weapons were found, and there was no evidence that these specific defendants participated in acts of vandalism, such as spray-painting or dismantling barbed wire.

The crux of the case rested on Article 112. The court found Arnon, Somyot, Pimsiri, and Phromsorn guilty based on their speeches. The court determined that the content compared the King to dictators and alleged a lack of political neutrality, thereby causing a loss of public faith in the monarchy. In Pimsiri’s case, the court noted that although she is a staff member of an international human rights organization, the speech was not delivered on behalf of the organization, nor did she provide sufficient testimony to justify her reasons for speaking. On the other hand, the court acquitted "Wan" Natthatida of the 112 charge, ruling that her reference to "those in the sky" referred to the spirits of the Red Shirt fallen, and her criticism of Article 112 was directed at the government’s administration.

Regarding "Sai" Inthira Charoenpura, the court acquitted her of all charges. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of her active participation in the illegal assembly. It noted that her social media posts about selling shirts or sharing bathroom locations were merely online activities, and the bathrooms mentioned existed prior to the protest. As for the final sentencing, Arnon, Somyot, Pimsiri, and Phromsorn were initially sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Due to their beneficial testimony, the court reduced the sentence by one-third to 2 years and 8 months without parole, plus a fine of 10,200 THB each. Natthatida received only a fine of 10,200 THB.

Following the reading, the court granted bail to Somyot, Pimsiri, and Phromsorn during the appeal process, with sureties set between 150,000 and 200,000 THB, supported by the Ratsadon Prasong Fund. For Arnon Nampa, however, this marks his 11th conviction under Article 112, bringing his total cumulative sentence from all cases to over 31 years and 9 months. All cases remain under appeal as the international community continues to monitor the state of freedom of expression in Thailand.

In the wake of this expanding judicial crisis, 112WATCH calls upon the public and the international community to exert pressure on the Thai government through several key actions.

First, 112WATCH urges the public to recognize that Article 112 is being used as a systematic political tool to silence dissent. They request that citizens join the campaign to sign petitions supporting the amendment or repeal of this law to align it with international human rights standards.

Second, the network encourages the public to communicate with their local Members of Parliament (MPs) to push for an unconditional amnesty for all political prisoners and to end criminal proceedings against individuals exercising their freedom of expression.

Finally, 112WATCH asks the public to remain vigilant, observe court proceedings, and share the facts of these cases globally. The network emphasizes that "public scrutiny" is the last line of defense against the distortion of the justice system. The ultimate goal is to restore freedom to Arnon Nampa and all other activists currently imprisoned for speaking the truth.

This case serves as a stark reflection of the ongoing battle over ideas and the use of law in the post-2020 era. The defense plans to appeal the verdict, particularly focusing on the irregular amendment of the indictment and the legal right to peaceful assembly.