Category World News

Bangkok, Thailand – A court is poised to decide whether Thailand’s most consequential and controversial political figure of the past 25 years, Thaksin Shinawatra, insulted the country’s revered monarchy, a crime that can land a culprit in jail for up to 15 years.

The charge, under Thailand’s strict “lese-majeste” royal defamation law, stems from an interview the 76-year-old business tycoon and former prime minister gave to a South Korean newspaper in 2015 regarding a military coup that toppled his sister and then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in 2014.

Though holding no official role in government, Thaksin remains a towering figure bearing over Thailand’s stormy politics, and the verdict on Friday will test the state of his long-fraught relationship with the country’s powerful royalist establishment.

“The prosecution is of great political significance,” said Verapat Pariyawong, a Thai law and politics scholar at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) University of London.

“If found innocent, Mr Thaksin would rely on the verdict as proof that he has always been a loyalist, contrary to the accusations by his political opponents which inflamed conflicts over the past two decades,” Verapat told Al Jazeera.

A guilty verdict, on the other hand, could “trigger a new round of political conflicts”, he said.

“Some would see it as a breakdown of the so-called grand compromise that paved the way for Mr Thaksin’s return to Thailand, and undoubtedly many will link the guilty verdict to other pending major court decisions not just against Mr Thaksin but also his daughter and suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra,” he added.

After 15 years in self-imposed exile, Thaksin returned to Thailand in 2023.

That lengthy absence from Thailand helped him to avoid a prison sentence on a prior corruption charge, though he was still forced to complete a commuted term in custody on his return home.

His latest tribulations stem from a royal defamation charge in June 2024, and he is also on trial for allegedly faking ill health in order to serve his sentence for corruption outside of jail.

Thaksin’s daughter and currently the country’s suspended prime minister, Paetongtarn, is being prosecuted for an alleged breach of ethics over a leaked phone call with Cambodia’s former prime minister and strongman Hun Sen.

A court suspended Paetongtarn from her duties as premier on ethical grounds last month after Hun Sen leaked their phone conversation, in which the Thai prime minister spoke reverentially to the Cambodian leader.

During the call, Paetongtarn referred to Hun Sen as “uncle” and criticised a Thai army commander.

Her political adversaries and other people said it was unbecoming of a Thai premier to have addressed a foreign leader so deferentially, and criticising the military is also a red line in a country where the politically powerful armed forces are held in high esteem.

A court is due to rule in Paetongtarn’s case on August 29, a verdict which could see her removed from office permanently.

Power player

Thaksin’s path to the pinnacle of Thai politics started modestly, with a stretch in the national police force beginning in the early 1970s.

With the help of a government scholarship, he earned a master’s degree and then a doctorate in criminal justice in the United States before returning to public service in Thailand and resigning from the police force as a lieutenant colonel in 1987.

Leveraging his professional contacts, Thaksin tried his hand at a number of business ventures before striking gold in telecommunications, founding and, in time, building his Shin Corp into an industry leader.

It also launched Thaksin onto Thailand’s richest list.

Last month, Forbes ranked Thaksin 11th among the country’s wealthiest families or people, with a personal net worth of $2.1bn.

In the 1990s, Thaksin started parlaying his business success into a political career, founding his first of many parties by the end of the decade.

On the back of a populist platform that promised affordable healthcare and debt relief, he landed in the prime minister’s office with a resounding general election win in 2001 and another in 2005.

But mounting scandals cut his second four-year term short.

Amid accusations of corruption over the $1.9bn sale of Shin Corp and an unrelated land deal that prompted mass protests, the Thai military removed Thaksin and his government in a 2006 coup.

A Thai court convicted him over the land deal the next year. To avoid jail, he fled into self-imposed exile in 2008.

Wanwichit Boonprong, a Rangsit University lecturer, says Thaksin had made powerful enemies within the country’s military – a force that has grown accustomed to managing its internal affairs largely independent of the government – by trying to steer the appointment and transfer of high-ranking officers.

By seeming to meddle in the military’s work, Wanwichit told Al Jazeera, Thaksin raised fears that he was bent on both “undermining the military and weakening the monarchy”.

The military has long prided itself as the ultimate protector of the Thai monarchy, a touchstone of the country’s influential conservative movement.

Thaksin also pulled off the rare feat in 2005 of winning enough seats in the House of Representatives to form a government without the need for any coalition partners, making him uncommonly potent as a political force.

That popularity scared his critics, says Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, an assistant professor at Chulalongkorn University.

“That popularity, combined with his quick and outspoken manner, raised a lot of people’s suspicion that he might want to or he might try to compete with King Bhumibol [Adulyadej],” he said.

While there was little, if any, proof to back that up, Khemthong said, “it became a very convenient tool to mobilise people” against Thaksin.

‘Super active’

But even in exile overseas, Thaksin continued to dominate Thai politics.

Parties tied to the Shinawatra family kept winning elections and forming governments, only to be thwarted by the military or the courts each time.

With a prison sentence hanging over him, the tech mogul stayed abroad for 15 years, until returning to Bangkok to cheering crowds on August 22, 2023.

Before leaving the airport, Thaksin ostentatiously prostrated himself before a portrait of the country’s new king, Maha Vajiralongkorn, son of the late King Bhumibol.

The very same day, the Shinawatras’s latest party, Pheu Thai, secured the premiership for its candidate, Srettha Thavisin, by backing out of a planned coalition with the more progressive Move Forward party, which had won that year’s general election.

Pheu Thai rejected speculation that it had struck a “grand bargain” with the conservative establishment by pulling away from Move Forward, which had campaigned on reining in the military and the monarchy’s powers, in exchange for Thaksin’s safe return.

However, only nine days later, King Vajiralongkorn commuted Thaksin’s prison sentence from eight years to one, and he was out on parole within months. He had also spent his entire six months in custody in a private room in the luxury wing of a state hospital.

Now, with Thaksin on the brink of another conviction that could again send him to jail, the “grand bargain” is seen to be fraying.

“A lot of people understand that when Thaksin came back he would lay low, that he was allowed to come back but he wasn’t allowed to be politically active, he should stay at home, be quiet. But instead of that he was super active,” said Chulalongkorn University’s Khemthong.

Despite having no official role in the Pheu Thai party or the government it now leads, Thaksin has spent little time out of the spotlight since returning home less than two years ago – proposing grand policy prescriptions at public fora, touring constituencies with reporters in tow, conferring with domestic and international leaders alike.

“So, a lot of people speculate that the [defamation] charge was to put more control over him, to control his behaviour, his political activism,” Khemthong said.

Thaksin’s continued high-profile lifestyle has also led to the popular belief that he, not his daughter, is still the real power behind the party, and by extension the government.

“Everyone knows that Thaksin is the spiritual leader and the real owner of the Pheu Thai Party,” said Rangsit University’s Wanwichit.

“Using this [defamation] case is akin to trying to keep Thaksin in check in the conservative power play,” and amounts to insisting that “he must obey the conservatives’ established guidelines,” Wanwichit added.

‘Court battle’

Critics of Thailand’s royal defamation law, or of how the courts use it, say it has long been swung like a cudgel against threats – real or imagined – to the conservative establishment’s political power and privilege.

The law, under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, prescribes up to 15 years in jail for anyone who “defames, insults or threatens” the king, queen, heir apparent or regent.

But Verapat, of SOAS, says many have “fallen victim” to the courts’ “expansive interpretation” of the law.

In January 2024, the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that the Move Forward party had breached the law by promoting a bill that proposed limits on how it could be used.

The panel of judges accused the party of harbouring a hidden agenda to undermine the country’s constitutional monarchy and ordered Move Forward to disband as a political movement.

When thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bangkok through much of 2020, calling on the military-aligned government at the time to step down, their list of demands grew to include reforms meant to rein in the monarchy’s alleged influence over politics in the military’s favour.

Since then, more than 280 people have been charged under Section 112, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, a local advocacy group.

Among the most prominent of the 2020 protesters was lawyer Arnon Nampa, who has been sentenced to a cumulative 27 years and eight months following his 10th conviction on a royal defamation charge in July.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has called the use of the law “a form of violence against those who exercise their right to freedom of expression”.

The defamation case against Thaksin, which is based on a 10-year-old interview in which he criticised no one strictly covered by Section 112, fits into that same, expansive “modus operandi”, Chulalongkorn University’s Khemthong said.

Whichever way the verdict goes on Friday, analysts say the fallout for Thaksin and the Shinawatra family is unlikely to be immediately known, as either side can and probably will appeal.

Khemthong said the case against Thaksin could continue to drag out for months, if not a year or more.

Rangsit University’s Wanwichit concurred.

A federal judge has ruled that lawyer Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed to the role of acting United States attorney for the District of New Jersey

Thursday’s decision from District Judge Matthew Brann was a rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to keep Habba, his former personal lawyer, in the role despite a previous court decision replacing her.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote.

Brann accused the Trump administration of using “a novel series of legal and personnel moves” to keep Habba in her role as US attorney.

But, given the fact that Habba has not been officially confirmed to the position by the US Senate, Brann decided that her actions since July 1 “may be declared void”.

Brann, however, put his decision on hold pending a likely appeal from the Trump administration.

The challenge against Habba’s continued role as US attorney came from defendants in cases she was pursuing.

Two, Julien Giraud Jr and Julien Giraud III, were charged with drug and firearm-related offences. A third, Cesar Humberto Pina, was accused of laundering drug proceeds and participating in a “multi-million-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme”.

Lawyers for Pina released a statement praising the judge’s decision later on Thursday and calling for the Trump administration to follow federal procedure for appointing US attorneys.

“Prosecutors wield enormous power, and with that comes the responsibility to ensure they are qualified and properly appointed,” lawyers Abbe David Lowell and Gerald Krovatin wrote in the statement.

“We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming US Attorney appointments.”

Trump clashes with judicial branch

Thursday’s court decision is likely to continue the power clash between President Trump and the judiciary, whom he has accused of being politically biased against him and his allies.

While Habba awaits a confirmation hearing before the US Senate, she has served in the US attorney position on an interim basis.

But such interim appointments are capped at a period of 120 days. Continuing beyond that time span requires approval from a panel of judges in the district.

The panel, however, declined Habba’s bid to stay in the role on July 22. It named her second-in-command, career prosecutor Desiree Grace, to replace her as US attorney.

But the Trump administration swiftly moved to reject the judges’ decision. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace and said Habba would continue in her role regardless of the July 22 court order.

“This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges,” Bondi wrote on social media.

The Justice Department, under Trump, has sought to retain term-capped interim US attorneys elsewhere as well.

But Habba’s handling of her position has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her close relationship with the president.

Habba was an early appointment to Trump’s second term. In December, just weeks after winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump revealed he would bring her into the White House as a counsellor for his administration.

Then, on March 24, he announced she would be his pick for US attorney for the New Jersey district.

Previously, Habba has represented Trump as a personal lawyer in several civil cases.

While she won one defamation suit brought against Trump by former reality TV contestant Summer Zervos, she lost two high-profile cases: a defamation suit brought by writer E Jean Carroll and a civil fraud case led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump is currently appealing both of those decisions.

Questions surrounding Habba’s leadership

Since taking on the role of interim US attorney, Habba told a podcaster that she hoped to help “turn New Jersey red” – an indication she may use her traditionally nonpartisan position for partisan aims.

She has also led probes and prosecutions that critics denounced as politically motivated. In one instance, she opened an investigation into New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Phil Murphy over his immigration policies.

In another, she charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing after he attempted to join several Congress members on a tour of the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility.

Those charges were later dropped, and a member of Habba’s office was rebuked in court. “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool,” Judge Andre Espinosa told the prosecutor.

Baraka has since filed a civil complaint accusing Habba of “subjecting him to false arrest and malicious prosecution”.

President Donald Trump and his allies have kicked off a redistricting fight in the United States as the country’s two main political parties angle for advantage in the 2026 midterm elections.

In an effort to maintain control of Congress, Republican leaders in the right-wing stronghold of Texas have pushed to redraw the state’s congressional districts in a way that would net the party as many as five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.

Trump has encouraged the effort, calling it a “big WIN for the Great State of Texas”. The state’s Senate is expected to vote on the new district plans as early as Thursday evening.

But that effort has prompted a backlash. The Democratic-leaning state of California responded in kind by passing a plan on Thursday to abandon nonpartisan redistricting and create new congressional maps that could bring the Democrats five more seats, negating the effort in Texas.

Party leaders in other states, including Missouri and Florida, have also indicated they may seek to rejigger their districts to pick up more seats.

The standoff points to larger questions about how to ensure fair representation in Congress and how Trump has sought to exert wide-reaching control over the country’s political system.

With Trump’s approval rating slipping to about 40 percent, Republicans risk losing their narrow, 219-person majority in the 435-seat House of Representatives in the midterm races.

So what is redistricting? And what could it mean for upcoming elections? We answer those questions and more in this quick explainer.

What is redistricting?

Simply put, the practice of redistricting refers to drawing the boundaries of an election district.

Ideally, districts should be designed as an accurate and proportionate reflection of the area’s population. Maps are generally updated every 10 years, in accordance with the latest population census.

But political parties can take steps to shape districts to their benefit, in a process sometimes referred to as gerrymandering.

That involves finding creative ways to maximise the number of seats a party can win by carving districts based on demographics and voting trends, to increase the electoral weight of certain groups and minimise the influence of others.

“Politicians can look at information about the partisan and demographic breakdown of an area and stack the decks in their favour,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego.

This practice has a long and fraught history in the US, especially in states with histories of segregation and discrimination, where maps were often drawn to dilute representation for minority voters.

What is happening in Texas?

While redistricting is far from new, Texas has been in the spotlight recently for a particularly overt partisan effort.

Part of the controversy stems from the involvement of President Trump, who prompted Texas Republicans to redraw maps.

In June and July, reports began to emerge that the White House was holding calls with Texas state leaders to tee up a redistricting battle, in preparation for the 2026 midterms.

Despite early concerns that the effort could backfire, Republican lawmakers in the state quickly put the plan in motion.

Speaking by phone to CNBC on August 5, Trump seemed to suggest that the makeup of the US Congress should reflect his success in the 2024 presidential race.

“We should have many more seats in Congress,” Trump said. “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.”

The state’s House of Representatives passed a new election map on Wednesday, and the Texas Senate is expected to do the same in the next few days. The new maps would carve out five additional districts in areas where Trump performed strongly during the last election.

How did Texas Democrats respond?

Texas Democrats condemned the redistricting as a partisan power grab and tried to prevent a vote on the new congressional map.

In early August, they left the state in a bid to deny the Texas legislature the quorum it needed to move the plan forward.

But as a minority voting bloc in the firmly Republican state legislature, the Democrats ultimately failed to stop the redistricting scheme.

While away, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the absent Democrats’ arrest, and the Republicans in the state House echoed that effort with a vote to issue arrest warrants. Abbott also threatened the Democrats with criminal charges, including for bribery, if they solicited funds during their absence.

What’s more, the Texas Democrats faced a series of reported bomb threats at their Illinois hotels. Eventually, after two weeks, they returned to their home state, allowing the vote to proceed.

Democratic leaders have said that, while they did not stop the redistricting push, they drew attention to the issue and are preparing to challenge the new maps in court.

Do both parties gerrymander?

Yes, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering, and the practice has been employed throughout US history in varying contexts.

In recent years, however, the practice has been more commonly associated with right-leaning states.

Princeton University’s Gerrymandering Project found that states with the most severe gerrymandering tend to be Republican-led states in the southern US, where the practice has historically been employed to dilute the influence of Black voters.

The project also found that a handful of states, such as Oregon, Illinois and Nevada, have partisan election maps that heavily favour Democrats.

Some Democrats previously criticised gerrymandering as anti-democratic and pushed for changes to ensure that redistricting is nonpartisan.

“Public servants should earn the votes of the people that they hope to represent. What Republicans are trying to do in Texas is to have politicians choose their voters,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently told reporters.

But as Trump seeks to increase his party’s advantage, some Democratic leaders have urged the party to change its approach and “fight fire with fire” through more explicitly partisan tactics.

Is gerrymandering legal?

Courts have, on occasion, struck down gerrymandered congressional maps on the basis that they violate the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by disadvantaging racial minorities and other demographics.

But the Supreme Court has ruled it will not intervene in questions of partisan gerrymandering, though state courts can.

How is California responding?

Following the developments in Texas, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his state would begin its own redistricting effort meant to add five congressional seats to the Democrats’ tally in the US House of Representatives.

California, the largest state by population, is considered solidly left-leaning: Nearly 47 percent of registered voters identified as Democrats in 2023, compared with 24 percent for Republicans.

On Thursday, the state’s legislature voted largely along party lines to forward the redistricting plan to Newsom’s desk for a signature.

“It’s the fact that this has been so baldly political and driven by demands from Trump that has allowed Democrats to take the gloves off,” said Kousser, the political science professor.

Newsom has depicted his actions as an unfortunate but necessary response to the Texas Republicans.

He said he will shelve California’s redistricting plans if Texas agrees to do the same, but he argues that Democrat-led states cannot “unilaterally disarm” and allow partisan redistricting to disadvantage them in Congress.

“Other blue states need to stand up,” Newsom said as he announced his plan. “We need to be firm.”

Former Democratic President Barack Obama said that, while his “preference” is to do away with gerrymandering, Newsom was taking a “responsible approach” by countering the Republicans.

Are other states considering redistricting plans?

Yes. The Republican-led state of Ohio announced redistricting plans, and Republican leaders in Florida, Indiana and Missouri have also suggested they will follow suit.

Meanwhile, officials in the Democrat-led state of Illinois are also mulling changes to the map-drawing process. New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul also said that her state may pursue redistricting if Texas moves forward with its plan.

How could this affect future elections?

It is unclear how much this redistricting battle will tip the scales for either party, particularly as Democrats consider steps to negate Republican gains.

But experts say there are generally more Republican-led states where redistricting might be viable

The primary objective is to gain an advantage in anticipation of the 2026 midterms, when control of Congress is up for grabs.

While each state receives exactly two senators, the number of representatives in the House varies depending on each state’s population size. All 435 seats in the House will be up for grabs in the midterms, and each congressional district is responsible for selecting the winner for one of those seats.

Trump last month called Texas the greatest prize – “the biggest one” – in the redistricting battle.

On Thursday, he framed the five seats Republicans hope to gain there as integral to his platform: “On our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself. Texas never lets us down.”

But halfway through Trump’s first term in office, the Republicans lost their majority in the House during the midterm elections. That loss gave Democrats greater power to stymie Trump’s legislative priorities.

“Trump is urging his allies to redraw districts as a way to insulate him and his political party from possible backlash in the midterms,” said Kousser.

Isn’t California doing the same thing as Texas?

Newsom has attempted to assuage concerns about California’s redistricting scheme by contrasting his plan with the one in Texas.

He says that California’s new map will go before voters in November for approval, unlike in Texas, and will only go into effect if Republican-led states do the same.

Still, his efforts would require sidelining a nonpartisan redistricting panel previously approved by California voters.

But Kousser says that Trump’s push for greater sway over the country’s political system may induce more Democrats to adopt partisan redistricting for themselves.