Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) writes to draw your immediate attention to the
certain situation of Military Court’s inquiry of a civilian‘s defense lawyer Anon Numpha for
allegedly sharing a testimony of a military witness adduced by a military prosecutor.
Tomorrow, the Bangkok Military Court is going to inquire Mr. Anon Numpha at the Bangkok
Military Court, in Khet Phra Nakhon, on 3 October 2018, at 8.30 am.
The inquiry related to the accusation against Mr. Anon Numpha for allegedly disseminating
a military prosecutor witness’ testimony in the Mr. Thanakorn Siripaiboon case that legal
officers of NCPO alleged him for violating Computer Crime Act and lese majeste and
sedition of the Penal Code as a result of his postings about the King Rama IX’s dog and the
alleged corruption in the construction of the Rajabhakti Park.
The Bangkok Military Court issued a summons dated 25 September 2018 to Mr. Anon
Nampha to be inquired over allegedly dissimating a military prosecutor‘s witness dated 23
February 2018 without permission of the Court. Nevertheless, an alleged content in the
prosecutor witness is part of the online article in the TLHR’s human rights case update title:
“NCPO’s legal officer in sharing alleged corruption in the construction of the Rajabhakti Park
and liking related to a dog king’s insult; testifying although he cannot use Facebook but
spotted the defendant’s liking FB.” The article reported the Thanakorn case between
February to September 2018 which is the public hearing without permission of making a
note of any observers.
Regarding Mr. Anon Numpha, he is a lawyer network of TLHR who delicates his effort to
provide a legal aid to political accuses during NCPO’s administration. He has accused in
criminal charges at lease 10 lawsuits for violating the head of the NCPO order No. 3/2015,
alleging the sedition-like offense of Article 116 of the Penal Code, and insulting a court of
Article 198 of the Penal Code.
This inquiry over disseminating a testimony of a military prosecutor‘s witness signifies the
emblematic situation of ongoing restriction on a right to a fair trial of the accused and
continuous judicial harassment against human right lawyers including political active citizens
who providing a legal aid for people who exercise their freedom of expression under the