Watcharee Phaoluangthong: Alternative Energy Campaigner
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Defendant Background
Offense
Allegation
Watcharee Phaoluangthong, an energy activist, got sued after giving an analysis in the interview on the energy policies and the regulation setting of the concession of the Independent Power Producers (IPP) of the National Energy Policy Council (NEPC), the inappropriate role of the higher-ranked authorities in the MInistry of Energy, the transparency on the concession process and EIA process of Siam Energy Ltd. Company. This interview was broadcasted in the Kom Chad Luek program by Nation Channel, moderated by Jomkwan Laopetch. The complainant sued Ms.Watcharee both under defamation charges and civil charges asking for over 300 million baht compensation
Circumstance of Arrest
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
Reference
20 January 2012
ธhe court announced its judgment stating that this case comes from IPP bidding among the private companies and the power plant is a government issue with consequences for the public welfare, so the means by which private companies operate and bid on projects like these are in the public interest and it is fair for the defendant to criticize it.
Since the bidding for the Bang Khla power plant had been agreed without a survey of the public’s opinion and their was no Environmental Impact Assesment as required by the Constitution, Article 67 (2), the defendant and general public understood that the bidding took place using the wrong procedure and was not transparent.
Moreover, the father of a board member of the plaintiff company is a General. It may cause doubt among the general public that the National Energy Policy Council should consider the project. The defendant’s statement was not to specifically say that the plaintiff is a fraud. Also it is true that some high-ranking government officials of the National Energy Policy Council are shareholders of some power plant companies, so the policy may be unduly beneficial to private companies.
The court had already considered and judged that the defendant’s statement did not blame the plaintiff company, but was meant to investigate the government officials’ work related to energy policy according to information the defendant received, which was regarding a public issue. Thus the defendant’s statement was a criticism of the National Energy Policy Council’s implementation. The defendant’s action was a systematic criticism, and it was a fair criticism made in a good faith. The defendant was not guilty and the judges dismissed the case.