In his effort to have former Department of Special Investigation (DSI) chief Tarit Pengdith locked up for "defaming" him when he was a deputy prime minister, political firebrand Suthep Thaugsuban has set another bad example of how politicians have exploited the criminal defamation law to silence and punish their critics.
On Dec 14, the Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the Criminal Court and the Appeal Court in the case filed against Tarit by Mr Suthep.
It handed Tarit a one-year jail term without suspension for saying at press conferences in early 2013 that Mr Suthep was responsible for the failure of the 6.67-billion-baht project to build 396 police stations.
The construction was endorsed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration. Mr Suthep, who oversaw the project, was then accused of approving changes to the construction without consulting his fellow ministers, by allowing the contract to be granted to a sole contractor, instead of having it split among different companies.
Many of the stations were left unfinished when PCC Development & Construction, the sole contractor, allegedly abandoned the project.
The DSI had conducted a probe into the affair following a complaint it received. Upon the completion of the investigation, Tarit held the press conferences accusing Mr Suthep of having a role in the project's failure, as his agency was about to submit the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to further investigate the claim of misconduct and dereliction of duty.
But Mr Suthep slapped Tarit with a lawsuit accusing his remarks of being "groundless and damaging" to his reputation. He refused to withdraw it even though Tarit issued a public apology ahead of the Supreme Court ruling.
As a then member of the government, Mr Suthep should have been aware that his level of accountability was much higher than other public office-holders. He should have been open not just to criticism but also investigation.
If he believed that Tarit's accusations were "groundless", he should have submitted solid evidence to the NACC to prove otherwise. His action against the head of a government agency, which had just done its job, sends the message that officials risk consequences if they take action against the powers that be.
Since the libel case does not require the court to deliberate whether those involved with the project committed the offence, the NACC is still probing the case. But its "investigation" has been unusually long and slow, while the public has been kept in the dark over who should be responsible for the failure of the project.
Mr Suthep is one of many former top government members to use the criminal defamation law to protect their reputation.
Among them is Mr Abhisit, who filed a lawsuit against former Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan for his 2009 remarks which "wrongfully accused him", as then prime minister, of ordering soldiers to kill red-shirt demonstrators and of stalling a petition seeking a royal pardon for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
As premier, Mr Abhisit was accountable to the public for whatever actions he took or decisions he made. The first and only action that he should have taken against Jatuporn was publicly countering the accusations with his version of facts, not to seek his imprisonment.
Ousted premier Yingluck Shinawatra also filed criminal defamation lawsuits against three Democrat MPs -- Sirichok Sopha, Chavanont Intarakomalyasut and Thepthai Senapong -- for their 2012 "defamatory remarks". But she decided to withdraw the case in October following their public apology.
The criminal defamation law in its current form stands as a threat to free speech and it should be repealed by lawmakers.
The law has been abused by the rich and those in power. It is worse when the nation's leaders, who should be open to both criticism and investigation, exploit it by trying to have their critics locked up.
