On Wednesday, the Appeal Court upheld a decision to dismiss lawsuits against Biothai president Witoon Lianchamroon initiated by the Weed Science Society of Thailand back in 2019.
The plaintiff had accused Mr Witoon of inputting false information into a computer system -- a violation of the Computer Crime Act -- in addition to defaming the plaintiff during a televised interview.
According to the Weed Science Society of Thailand, Mr Witoon should be prosecuted for disseminating false information after he criticised the plaintiff's suggestion on Facebook that the government scrap the ban on glyphosate, classified as a "blue label" chemical by authorities, and promote the use of glufosinate, which is considered by the government as a "yellow label" additive.
The reason, it said, was that Mr Witoon's public response to the suggestion, which he also posted on Facebook, contained erroneous references to paraquat -- another banned chemical -- as being a yellow label additive.
It also accused Mr Witoon of defaming the group in a televised interview, in which he criticised "an academic association" for pushing the government to backtrack on the ban.
The Criminal Court had ruled back in 2021 that Biothai's comment could not be considered disinformation under the Computer Crime Act, but the plaintiff appealed the ruling.
However, the Appeal Court also ruled in Mr Witoon's favour, reasoning the Biothai president did not offer any specific name, nor did he intend to launch a personal attack against an individual or entity.
The ruling ended the legal threat against Mr Witoon, which many observers described as a "Slapp" suit -- a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
According to the Bangkok-based Human Rights Lawyers' Association, at least 212 such suits were launched in Thailand between 1997-2019, 196 of which contained criminal accusations with potentially severe consequences.
Mr Witoon is fortunate because Biothai is an established conservation group with a wide network and the resources to provide him with the help he needed. Others are not so lucky -- many villagers and journalists have been forced to keep their mouths shut out of fear of facing a damaging lawsuit.
A number of countries have rolled out measures to prevent plaintiffs who are in a position of power from abusing the legal system to silence their critics.
The Philippines, for instance, passed a measure in 2010 which allowed courts to toss out a case that they deem to be a Slapp in a summary hearing, as opposed to letting it evolve into a costly trial. The law also permits Slapp defendants to seek compensation.
Thailand has one legal measure to deal with Slapps. The latest amendment to Section 161/1 of Thailand's Criminal Procedure Code allows a court -- but not police nor prosecutors -- to dismiss a case filed in "bad faith".
Thailand's anti-Slapp bill has been left to gather dust since it was approved in January last year, with no sign it will be sent to parliament any time soon. When it does become law, it will only protect officials in government agencies who report corruption in the public sector.
All stakeholders need to push for anti-Slapp measures across the board to prevent the use of lawsuits to bully critics. Doing nothing is simply not an option.
