• 
• 

The high profile litigation was a fallout from a censure debate in 1997 which Suthep, in his capacity as the opposition member, delivered a damning speech against former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh following the currency devaluation which triggered the Asian financial crisis.

Suthep claimed that Chavalit had wrongfully allowed Bhokin to attend a crucial meeting before cutting loose the baht and that Bhokin leaked the information to the then telecom tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra who made huge gains from speculative currency trading.

Chavalit issued a public statement denying Bhokin's presence at the meeting which was confined to himself and two officials, then Finance minister Thanong Bidaya and then central bank chief Rerngchai Marakanond.

Citing Chavalit's statement as evidence, Bhokin sued Suthep for defamation and demanded Bt4 billion in damages before reducing the compensation. The plaintiff argued that Suthep smeared to Bhokin as a third person, hence there was no grounds to invoke the parliamentary immunity.

Some 16 major newspapers and media outlets were named as accomplices to publish and distribute Suthep's speech.

Following the release of the high court's final verdict, Suthep said the judicial review found him to have carried out his duty as the opposition MP to censure government leaders.

In regard to the question whether Bhokin was present at the meeting, two plaintiff witnesses, Thanong and Rerngchai, testified that Bhokin was in attendance without authorisation. The high court ruled that Suthep did not skewed the information to smear Bhokin but outlined what happened.

Suthep said he was grateful for justice being his shield for doing his job in censuring the government.

The Nation