Supreme Court Verdict in NUP Terrorism Case Postponed Due to Defendant’s Illness

Bangkok: The reading of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the National United Front (NUP) terrorism case from 2010 has been postponed to January 20, 2026. This decision came after one of the key defendants, Jeng Dokjik, suffered a stroke.

According to Thai News Agency, the postponed hearing was initially set to take place in courtroom 609 of the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road. The case involves members of the National United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (NUFDD), including Mr. Veera Musikapong, Mr. Jatuporn Prompan, Mr. Nattawut Saikua, and 24 others. They were charged with terrorism and unlawful assembly for their roles in the 2010 demonstrations aimed at pressuring the government and opposing then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Between February 28 and May 20, 2010, the defendants allegedly incited public demonstrations with the Red Shirts (NPA) group, demanding the dissolution of parliament and new elections. They claimed Abhisit’s ascent to power was illegitimate and demanded the abrogation of the 2007 Constitution. The demonstrations were organized at key locations and involved blockades, the use of M79 grenade launchers, and training personnel for terrorist acts.

Initially, all defendants pleaded not guilty and were mostly released on bail. The lower court acquitted them, but the prosecution appealed the decision. On January 9, 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s acquittal for two defendants, sentencing Jeng Dokjik to 5 years and 4 months, and Suksek Poltue to life imprisonment. The other defendants’ acquittals were upheld.

The public prosecutor and defendants 7 and 12 filed an appeal. Today, while Defendant No. 12, their lawyer, and the bail guarantor for Defendant No. 7 appeared in court, Defendant No. 7 was absent. The absence was attributed to health issues, as a lawyer submitted a medical certificate indicating that the defendant suffered a stroke and required 30 days of treatment. Consequently, a request for a 30-day postponement of the appeal reading was filed.