NBTC filed a defamation lawsuit against Dr.Deunden and Nattha
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Dr.Deunden criticized against the policy of NBTC regarding the delay in the auction of the fourth-generation wireless broadband licences. Dr. Duenden made her comment in "This is Thai PBS", the news talk program of Thai PBS hosted by Nattha Komolvadhin. Both were sue by the board of NTC later on.
Defendant Background
Offense
Allegation
According to the indictment, during the period of 29 July – 14 August 2013, both defendants imputed against NBTC and NTC by distributing false statement regarding the NBTC’s draft regulation to extend the concessions for protecting TrueMove’s and Digital Phone Co’s customers concerning the expiry of their 1800 MHz mobile phone concession contracts. It was pointing out that the defendants’ criticisms were intended to to impair the reputation of NBTC and NTC or to expose NBTC and NTC to be hated or scorned through various media such as daily newspaper, online newspaper including the TV programme, “This is Thai PBS” on Thai PBS channel.
The first defendant strongly disagree with NBTC’s draft regulation for protecting such mobile phone subscribers. The first defendant has given interviews via diverse media by intentionally quoting and giving the information that was contrary to the truth even though the first defendant was directly involved with the issue since she was appointed to be a member of the sub-committee on Preparation for Digital PCN Administration, inevitably, the first defendant must know and understand clearly about the details of the sub-committee’s resolution report and also its proposal to NTC.
Therefore, such interviews were deemed to be an imputation and distortion of facts which can mislead the public to understand that NBTC and NTC were dishonest, not transparent and abandoned their duties. The defendant’s act also destroyed the confidence in the telecommunication industry including the regulating system.
Despite the fact that NBTC and NTC have always making clarification on the criticized issues, the second defendant still aired the interview of the first defendant via the programme “Teenee Thai PBS” on Thai PBS Channel on 14 August 2013. The second defendant neglected for checking and correcting the information.
Consequently, the acts of both defendants have damaged reputation and fame of the plaintiffs as Commissioners of NBTC and NTC and individuals. Moreover, the interview has been disseminated across the kingdom so that the case was taken place in every sub-districts, districts, and provinces in Thailand.
Circumstance of Arrest
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
Reference
31 July 2013
Deunden Nikomborirak provided interviews with Bangkok Business Newspaper, Thai Post Newspaper, Naewna Newspaper and Ban Muang Newspaper saying that the NBTC’s decision to extend the use of 1800 MHz frequency spectrum for private companies for another year could damage the country and the people at least 160 billion baht due to the delay of 1800 MHz spectrum auction.
9 August 2013
Deunden gave another interview with ASTV Manager Online and Prachatai Online citing the extension of the concession for one more year would cause the national loss about 160 billion baht.
14 August 2013
Deunden’s interview was broadcasted in “Teenee Thai PBS” programme on Thai PBS channel hosted by Nattha Komolvadhin.
29 August 2013
Colonel Dr. Setthapong Malisuwan including four other plaintiffs has filed a defamation case against Dr.Deunden Nikomborirak, and Dr. Nattha Komolvadhin to the Criminal Court.
5 September 2013
The National Press Council of Thailand, the News Broadcasting Council of Thailand, the Thai Journalists Association, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association, Thailand Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS) and Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) held a joint press conference regarding the defamation case taken by NTC against the academic and the media.
Dr. Somkiat Tangkitvanich, TDRI’s President, along with Assoc Prof Dr. Malee Boonsiripan, Chairperson of the Policy Committee of Thai PBS and Visut Komwatcharapong, President of the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association took a stand against the legal action stating that the news and information delivered to the public was made under the duty of the medias and academics in order to protect the public interest. Nevertheless, if the information was inequitably introduced, NTC should bring up the correct information to disprove such data. It was ordinary that the NTC and the NBTC, as public bodies, should be subjected to rigorous debates and critical examination by the public. Hence, filing the defamation lawsuit was deemed as a threat against academic and media freedom in Thailand.
6 September 2013
The Office of NBTC disseminated a statement on its website citing that this lawsuit was aimed to protect dignity and honour of the four Commissioners and the NBTC Office whose legal rights under the Constitution and the law were violated This is not a threat to academics or media.
The statement said that the file lodged by NBTC was not intended to intimidate or influence the media by prohibiting them to criticize the NBTC but the false information should not be presented.
Furthermore, the action would also assist in elevating the academic standard of research institute while urging the media to carefully examine accuracy of the information before presenting it.
11 September 2013
At Mida City Resort, Bangkok, Consumer Rights Group and various civil society groups from all over the country organized a public seminar, entitled “While the rights of scholars and media were destroyed so how can consumers rely on the NTC?”
The Consumer Rights Group and representatives of organizations for consumers issued a statement, requesting the four Commissioners and the NBTC Office to promptly withdraw the charge against academic and media immediately. The consumer groups also warned that if they refuse to withdraw the case, they will be sued when they commit their duty defectively.
18 September 2013
Mr. Takorn Tantasith, NBTC’s Secretary-General, provided an interview to the press citing that they were contacted by Thai PBS for a closed door negotiation with the four Commissioners. He said if the negotiation ended with understanding, the NTC and the NBTC might considerately withdraw such lawsuit.
However, Nattha later posted on her personal facebook assuring that she and Dr.Deunden have never contacted NTC to called for a case withdrawal and she also insisted that the case would undergo in judicial process continuously.
12 September 2013
Chulalongkorn University’s Center for Political Economy Study a public forum on “Defamation Case against Academics and the Public Role od Acdemics”, focusing on this specific case. One of the panelists, Dr.Veera Somboon, commented that this is the case of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) intimidating and silencing public participation against those who plan to publicly criticize against public organizations.
17 September 2013
Academics from Thammasat University held a public forum, “Freedom to investigate and the price to pay: the case of Telecom Committee suing academic and the media”. Representatives from the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication (Thammasat University) and iLaw (Internet Dialogue on Law Reform) critically examined the work of the NBTC and its accountability to the public. The forum discussed how to balance between freedom of expression/investigation and the rights to take legal action against criticism. In addition, the Media Defence Southeast Asia (MDSEA) issued a statement, criticizing the defamation suit and calls for the NBTC to promptly withdraw the defamation case against Dr. Deunden and Dr. Nattha, immediately.
19 September 2013
After the news claimed that Thai PBS was contacting NTC to ask for a negotiation was widely broadened, Nattha have reaffirmed her stand via her personal facebook that she would give it her best shot fighting in the court.
In addition, her message ran along with the picture of Mr. Somchai Suwanban, Thai PBS’s Director, who repeatedly denied that Thai PBS never made any contact with NBTC and neither ask for a compromise or withdraw the case; in the contrary, he insisted the corporation has been fully prepared to defend the case.
17 March 2014
At 10.30 hrs. the Criminal Court, Ratchada Pisek Road, the Court read an order on Office of The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) pressed charge against academic and media for defamation. The Court considered the evidences, and deemed that the first defendant is an academic from Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) and NBTC’s Subcommittee for Frequency Management Preparation so she must have been well aware of the process of allocation the frequencies. Therefore, the interview conducted by mass media and Tee Nee Thai PBS programme (“This is Thai PBS” programme) could have misled the people to understand that the NBTC’s Subcommittee caused the Country’s losses, which also caused NBTC’s damage.
The second defendant was Tee Nee Thai PBS programme (“This is Thai PBS” programme) host. Being a media had to be careful when presenting news, not to affect others. The to-be-presented news should be pre-studied appropriately, and both parties should be presented to clarify. At present, the Court acknowledged the ground of action, therefore, accepted the case.
Later on after reading the order, the Court advised both parties to mediate by 30 June 2014, which was when the Court scheduled for both defendants’ testimonies, and evidence, before witnesses would be be examined.
22 August 2014
The State Audit Commission (SAC) Positions Recruitment Committee notified the list of new recruits. Mr. Sutthipol Thaweechaikarn, from NBTC, was appointed an SAC for legal sector.
Source: Krungthep Turakij
26 September 2014
At Mediation Room, the Criminal Court, Ratchada Pisek Road, the Court scheduled to mediate and reconcile the case. The result was that both parties reached the agreement, and together made a statement that at this point each party was forgiven, and that there would be no further legal proceedings. The plaintiff then withdrew the accusation. The Court considered and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw. And the Court deoped the pending case from the case list.
Sauce: Nation TV