A judge in Nakhon Ratchasima province found whistleblower Chutima Sidasathian not guilty today of three charges of criminal defamation.
In her ruling, the judge said Chutima was entitled to make genuine criticism of local administrators. Onlookers saw the judge’s comments as a sweeping endorsement of the right to freedom of expression in Thailand.
Speaking after her court victory, Chutima said she was delighted with the verdict. She called for Thailand’s government to repeal the ”vicious laws” that have been used against her twice in the past decade, first as an investigative journalist, then as a community advocate.
”Today’s victory does not prevent the same person or others from suing me all over again,” she said. ”Civil defamation is all that’s required to protect reputations. The government has to kill these abusive criminal defamation laws because they silence genuine criticism and debate.”
All three charges against Chutima were brought by a local elected official, Banlang sub-district mayor Thanonthorn Kaveekitrattana. Another six charges, all brought by the sub-district mayor, are likely to be passed by police to the provincial prosecutor’s office.
Each charge carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a large fine. Once charged, journalists and advocates are categorized and treated as ”criminals.”
Chutima and her legal team will deliver a substantial submission asking the Korat Prosecutor to drop the remaining six cases on Friday (March 8), coinciding with International Women’s Day.
”Advocates and journalists should be protected, not persecuted by the state,” Chutima said. ”People who speak up on behalf of others deserve to be listened to, not to face false accusations and long jail terms.”
While Mayor Thanonthorn said the charges he brought were ”personal” and not about politics, Chutima’s unpaid investigation over two years exposed a shocking community banking imbroglio in which the mayor’s name was often mentioned.
Chutima’s regular posts on Facebook, aimed at informing and empowering villagers who had become victims of the banking scam, led to the mayor seeking criminal defamation charges at two local police stations. Police in Thailand accept all cases because it is ”their duty.”
Meanwhile, the villagers continued to suffer psychological trauma from being forced to repay loans that in many cases they never saw while the fraudsters went unpunished.
Several unnatural early deaths have been attributed to the scandal, with inequality in Thailand accentuated by the way law enforcement officers ignored or deflected the villagers’ pleas for help.
Within weeks, a documentary made by a fly-in Al Jazeera team and the report of an 18-person Special Commission of Investigation, triggered by Chutima’s exposes, are expected to reveal the culprits who allegedly misdirected millions of baht in the community banking fraud.
It’s not the first time Chutima has faced unjust defamation fire. Almost 10 years ago, a judge found the then-reporter and her editor, the author of this article, not guilty of criminal defamation and computer crimes charges brought by the Royal Thai Navy in what became known as the Phuketwan trial, named after their small, now-defunct online news outlet.
Phuketwan published a news report that included a paragraph taken straight from a Reuters feature series that eventually won a Pulitzer prize. The blow to the navy’s reputation triggered by the misdirected lawsuit could have been avoided if, instead of suing, the admirals had simply made a telephone call to Phuketwan or Reuters and sought an explanation.
The Phuketwan verdict, widely reported by national and international media, was expected to usher in greater freedom of expression in Thailand. Instead, criminal defamation charges have since increased exponentially, causing the Thai media to become even more risk-averse and self-censored.
Chutima’s case has gone largely unreported in Thailand – except by Morison and his former Phuketwan reporter, writing in the Asia Times. The judge’s full comments will become available in 10 days; the mayor has 30 days to appeal.
Win or lose in court, the penalties of criminal defamation for advocates and journalists are substantial, with the process often producing unjust punishment. Soon after its judicial victory, Phuketwan closed, this writer lost a chunk of his life savings and Chutima was thrust out of a job that she loved.
Now she has undergone needless cost, enduring regular police interviews and fingerprinting and psychological trauma all over again for her whistle-blowing.
”Who will pay for my suffering, who will pay for my loss of income?” Chutima asked. ”Criminal defamation punishes good people who are brave enough to speak up for others. I will only be able to celebrate when the day comes that the Thai government repeals these laws.”
Other journalists have acknowledged that from 2008 to 2016, Chutima played a key role in exposing with great courage the horrors of human trafficking of Rohingya people through Thailand.
She worked as a ”fixer” for Reuters on their Pulitzer-winning feature, assisted Pulitzer winner Ian Urbina on his ground-breaking New York Times series on slavery at sea and was field producer on the award-winning documentary “Ghost Fleet.”
More recently, her solo investigation of the community banking scandal is expected to lead to major changes in the way the Thai government provides financial assistance to farmers nationwide.
Thailand’s Human Rights Commission conducted an investigation last year before declaring Chutima to be a human rights defender and the cases against her to be Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
TrialWatch, an arm of the Clooney Foundation for Justice, monitored Chutima’s two-day trial in February and will release a detailed report soon.
Observers from the International Commission of Jurists, the Human Rights Lawyers’ Association (Thailand), the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and the opposition Move Forward Party attended court for today’s verdict.
Chutima acknowledged support from Sr Law, London-based Media Defence, UN officials, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, Article 19, the Coalition for Women in Journalism and the organizers of the annual UK Anti-SLAPP conference in London, which she attended last year.