A Half-Century of Incarceration: Thai Court Sentences "Tonphai" to 50-Year Total Under Article 112, Marking a Record Peak Amid Fair Trial Concerns

On February 10, 2026, the Thai Criminal Court delivered a historic and chilling verdict in the case of Phrutthikorn Saragul, widely known as “Tonphai,” a 43-year-old former private employee. Accused of violating Article 112 (Lèse-majesté) and Section 14 (3) of the Computer Crimes Act for 10 posts on the Twitter account “Guillotine Activists for Democracy” between late 2021 and early 2022, Tonphai was sentenced to 30 years in prison (3 years per count). When added to a previous 20-year sentence handed down in late 2025, Tonphai’s total term of imprisonment has reached 50 years. This ties the record for the highest sentence ever imposed under Thailand’s Lèse-majesté law, matching the 50-year-and-6-month term previously given to activist Mongkhon “Busbas” Thirakot in Chiang Rai.

The Procedural Battleground: Trials in Absentia and Judicial Prejudice

The most alarming aspect of this case lies not just in the duration of the sentence, but in the judicial process itself. Throughout the trial, the defense team, led by Arnon Nampa, repeatedly filed motions challenging the court’s "prejudice" and "expedited" procedures. The court relied on Section 172 bis/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code to conduct hearings and deliver the verdict in absentia. The defense argued that this was inherently unjust, particularly as Nampa himself was incarcerated during the trial, which rendered effective and private legal consultation between counsel and client impossible—a fundamental breach of international due process standards.

Furthermore, the defense petitioned the Constitutional Court to determine whether laws allowing for trials in absentia for high-penalty crimes violated Section 29 of the 2017 Constitution, which protects the rights of the accused. In August 2025, however, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision was proportional and did not violate the rule of law. This ruling served as a "green light" for the Criminal Court to proceed with sentencing in Tonphai's absence. The defense recorded a formal protest in the case file, asserting that the court’s refusal to suspend the case until the defendant was present turned the proceedings into a "procedural manoeuvre" rather than a search for justice.

Judicial Reasoning: Digital Evidence and Expert Interpretations

In its final judgment, the court found the prosecution's digital evidence linking the Twitter account to the defendant to be compelling. The court dismissed the defense’s denial of ownership, citing a lack of corroborating evidence presented by the defendant during the initial investigation phase. Furthermore, the court admitted testimonies from several conservative scholars who served as prosecution witnesses, interpreting the 10 posts as defamatory, malicious, and intended to incite hatred toward the monarchy.

The imposition of a half-century sentence represents a grim milestone in Thailand’s judicial history. It reflects an intensifying trend of utilizing Article 112 not only with extreme punitive measures but also through legal technicalities that minimize the defendant's role in their own defense. The case of "Tonphai" stands as a stark warning to all political activists in Thailand: they now face not only record-breaking prison terms but also a judicial system increasingly willing to prioritize expedited closures over the fundamental right to a fair and present trial.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1312066564097144&set=a.656922399611567