Reconsidering Bail Practices: Thailand Questioned After Activist's Death

Thailand should not wait for another death in custody before confronting a difficult question: Are we relying too heavily on pre-trial detention in political cases? This week, the Thanyaburi Provincial Court ruled that activist Netiporn “Bung” Sanesangkhom died from an electrolyte imbalance and an enlarged heart while in state custody. The court did not conclude that prison medical staff had acted negligently, finding the evidence insufficient to reach a definitive determination. But one fact remains beyond dispute: Bung died while being held before her trial had concluded. The timing of the ruling is impossible to ignore. Just days earlier, the remaining defendants in the royal motorcade poll case—the same lèse-majesté case in which Bung’s bail had twice been revoked—were acquitted of both lèse-majesté and sedition charges. Bung, the eighth defendant, never heard that verdict. She spent a total of 204 days in detention, including 110 consecutive days before her death, after the court rejected another bail application in February 2024. No one can say with certainty how Bung’s own trial would have ended because the proceedings against her were terminated when she died. But the acquittal of her co-defendants reinforces the importance of a principle that lies at the heart of every justice system: defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Bung never had the opportunity to benefit from that presumption. That should have been a turning point. Instead, Thailand risks repeating the same mistake. Bail is not an acquittal. It is not an endorsement of a defendant’s beliefs or actions. It exists because every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Depriving someone of their liberty before a conviction becomes final should be an exceptional measure, reserved for situations where there is a genuine risk of flight, interference with witnesses or evidence, or danger to the public. That principle should not disappear because a case is politically sensitive. Yet in practice, political activists—particularly those charged under the lèse-majesté law—often face extraordinary difficulty obtaining bail. Some have had bail repeatedly denied or revoked, spending months or even years behind bars before their cases are finally decided. In politically sensitive cases, detention too often appears to have become the norm rather than the exception. The debate is not theoretical. It is happening today. Activist Ekachai Hongkangwan remains behind bars while seeking Supreme Court review of his conviction in the 2020 royal motorcade case. His case itself illustrates why continued detention before a final judgment deserves closer scrutiny. In 2023, the Criminal Court acquitted Ekachai and his co-defendants after finding insufficient evidence that they intended to obstruct the royal motorcade. The court noted testimony that many protesters were unaware a royal procession was approaching and found that police had failed to properly clear the route or notify demonstrators in advance. Among the witnesses was veteran journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk, who testified that he saw no attempt by protesters to block the motorcade while covering the protest. The Court of Appeal later overturned that acquittal, convicted the defendants under Section 110 of the Criminal Code—an offence punishable by 16 years to life imprisonment, or the death penalty if the act endangers the life of the King, Queen, heir-apparent or regent—and imposed lengthy prison sentences. The case is now before the Supreme Court, meaning the judicial process has not yet run its course. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court denied Ekachai bail despite concerns over his health, ruling that his medical needs could be addressed within the prison system. Civil society groups have since appealed for his transfer to a specialist hospital outside prison, citing serious medical conditions, while the House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Human Rights has agreed to examine the case. Whether the Supreme Court ultimately upholds or overturns Ekachai’s conviction is for the courts to decide. But that is precisely the point. Two courts have already reached fundamentally different conclusions on the same evidence. His conviction is not final. Yet he remains behind bars. The issue extends beyond bail. Parliament has approved an amnesty bill that excludes lèse-majesté offences, leaving many political detainees outside its scope. According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, at least 30 political prisoners are expected to remain ineligible because they face lèse-majesté charges. For many defendants, there is no bail, no amnesty and no certainty about when their legal ordeal will end. Reasonable people can disagree about the monarchy. They can disagree about the lèse-majesté law. They can disagree about the actions of political activists. But those disagreements should not determine whether a person enjoys the procedural protections that are the foundation of a fair justice system. The right to bail should not depend on whether a case is politically convenient or politically controversial. It should depend on objective legal considerations and the individual circumstances of each defendant. If the state cannot demonstrate a compelling reason to keep someone behind bars before trial—or before a conviction becomes final—liberty, not detention, should be the default. Bung’s story should have been the moment Thailand reconsidered how it approaches bail in political cases. Instead, another activist whose conviction is not yet final remains in prison despite concerns over his health. Parliament has also chosen to exclude most lèse-majesté defendants from the new amnesty law, leaving many political detainees with no realistic prospect of relief while their legal battles continue. Justice delayed is one thing. Liberty denied before guilt has been finally established is another. Bung cannot be brought back. But if her death does not prompt Thailand to reaffirm that bail—not prolonged detention—should be the starting point even in politically sensitive cases, then the lesson of her case will have been lost. Bung should be the last. Ekachai should not be next. The post Opinion: Bung’s death should be the last. Ekachai should not be next. appeared first on Thai Enquirer.