Yingluck’s appeal bid to reopen rice case rejected

Thailand's Supreme Administrative Court has upheld the rejection of Yingluck Shinawatra's request to reopen a case concerning more than 10 billion baht in compensation linked to the rice pledging scheme.

The ruling was read at 1.30pm on 23 September 2026 in Courtroom 4 of the Central Administrative Court building. Yingluck, a former prime minister, and her husband Anusorn Amornchat had sought a new hearing in case number 3/2569.

Court finds no new evidence

Yingluck and Anusorn had challenged the prime minister and eight other parties over an order by the Finance Ministry requiring Yingluck to pay 10,028,861,880 baht in compensation.

The ministry held her liable in her roles as prime minister and chair of the National Rice Policy Committee. It said she had allowed corruption in the rice pledging scheme and failed to use her authority to stop resulting losses to the state.

On 13 January 2026, the Central Administrative Court rejected the couple's application for a new hearing. The application relied on an urgent Commerce Ministry letter, number Por Nor 0302.3/781, dated 1 August 2025.

The letter concerned information related to a confidential Commerce Ministry order, number 453/2559, issued on 19 September 2016, requiring Yingluck to pay compensation.

However, the court found that the material was only evidence of Yingluck's later correspondence with the Commerce Ministry. As it arose after the Supreme Administrative Court had already issued its judgment, it was not considered new evidence capable of materially changing the facts of the case.

Appeal also dismissed

The Supreme Administrative Court said it had already exercised its discretion in assessing evidence on losses arising from government-to-government rice sales. That evidence was contained in the case file during proceedings at both the Central Administrative Court and Supreme Administrative Court, including submissions filed by both sides.

It said the arguments amounted to a challenge to the Supreme Administrative Court's exercise of discretion, rather than proof that the court had made an error in its factual findings.

The court also found there was neither new evidence that could materially alter facts already settled nor a serious procedural flaw that would make the outcome unjust. It therefore ruled that Yingluck's appeal against the refusal to reopen the case had no merit.

Yingluck's lawyer said the legal team would consult her on possible further steps.

Picture courtesy of Khoasod

Join the discussion?

24 September 2026