As public attention is focusing on the upcoming August 25 verdict on former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra on trial for dereliction of duty over the handling of the rice pledging scheme, little is known about the judges in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices who will decide on her fate or the men who have done the best they can to defend the ex-prime minister.

A panel of nine judges was assigned to deliberate the case. But for the past two years and six months since the trial of Ms Yingluck started, 14 senior judges have sat on the panel and some of them have retired or have been replaced.

The current panel of nine judges include

1.Mr Cheep Chulamon, the chief handler of the case and the acting Supreme Court president

2.Mr Thanaruek Nitiserani, the acting president of the Appeals Court

3.Mrs Ubonrat Luiwikkai, acting vice president of the Supreme Court

4.Mr Thanasit Nilkamhaeng, acting vice president of the Supreme Court

5.Mr Salaikate Wattanapan, acting vice president of the Supreme Court

6.Mr Sopon Rote-anon, acting vice president of the Supreme Court

7.Mr Viroon Saengthien, vice president of the Supreme Court

8.Mr Phison Piroon, chair of the Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices; and

9.Mr Thanit Kesavapitak, a former Constitutional Court judge.

Of the nine judges, five of them also sit in the panel on the trial of the government-to-government rice scandal implicating former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyaphirom. Verdict of the case is also due on August 25.

This explains why the verdicts of the two court cases are scheduled to be read on the same day.

On the defence side, the team of lawyers is headed by Mr Pichit Chuenban and comprises Mr Anek Kamchum, Mr Norrawit Larlaeng and Mr Sommai Koosap.

Moreover, the team is also assisted by the Pheu Thai Party’s top legal hands, including Chusak Sirinil, Bhokin Bhalakula, Noppadol Pattama, Ruangkrai Leekitwattana and political strategist Phumtham Wechayachai.

The same team lawyers used to defend former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on the Ratchadapisek land scandal in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Offices. But the team lost the case and Thaksin was sentenced in absentia to 2-year imprisonment while his wife, Khunying Potjaman, was cleared of all the charges.

Political observers commented that the strength of Ms Yingluck’s lawyers’ team defending the rice pledging case is that they have worked closely with the Pheu Thai’s lawyers team, which added political tactics in fighting the case.

For example, in Ms Yingluck’s verbal closing statement on Aug 1, she accused Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha for giving press interviews in a way that lead the public into believing that she was guilty in the case.

She said on July 25, Gen Prayut gave in interview to the media and said “if this scheme isn’t wrong, how could it go all the way to the justice system.” She said the remark was tantamount to a conclusion that she was guilty despite the fact that the court has not yet had a judgement.

No one can correctly predict the outcome of the verdicts of the two rice-related cases. But the good news is that – this time around – the defendants in both cases have the right to appeal their judgements to the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court judges in accordance with the new Constitution.

In the past, the verdicts of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders olf Political Offices are final and cannot be appealed.