Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should forward a case seeking compensation from former premier Yingluck Shinawatra for damages caused by her government's rice-pledging scheme to the Civil Court, says her lawyer.
Noppadon Laothong cited the case of former central bank governor Rerngchai Marakanond, who has been cleared by the Supreme Court in a decade-long battle involving the loss of 186 billion baht just before the 1997 economic crisis.
Mr Noppadon, who also represented Mr Rerngchai in his case, said the government at the time filed a civil suit against Mr Rerngchai.
He argued the current government failed to offer Ms Yingluck a chance to seek justice by issuing an administrative order seeking 35.7 billion baht in compensation from her instead of taking the case to the Civil Court as in Mr Rergnchai's case.
The prime minister's invocation of Section 44 under the interim charter to authorise the Legal Execution Department to seize her assets is also unfair, he said.
In Ms Rerngchai's case, the Supreme Court ruled Mr Rerngchai had to make decisions as a policy-maker and any resulting loss of money should not be considered liability or damage.
Ms Yingluck, who oversaw a national policy to help farmers via her rice-pledging scheme as prime minister, should be treated in the same manner, Mr Noppadon said.
In light of this, Gen Prayut should review Ms Yingluck's case, he said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Appeal Court's ruling to clear Mr Rerngchai of civil penalties, ending his 11-year battle for justice.
After the currency crisis which caused the baht to depreciate by almost 100% from 25 baht per US dollar to 48 baht, Mr Rerngchai was the sole central bank official to be taken to court for severe negligence under the 1996 Tort Liability Act for using national reserves to defend the currency which resulted in a loss of more than 186 billion baht.
Mr Rerngchai had been fined the record amount in June 2005 by the Civil Court for his role in approving currency transactions by the Bank of Thailand during his term as governor in the months leading up to the 1997 economic crisis.
The Appeal Court in 2010 overturned the lower court ruling that imposed the penalty on Mr Rerngchai, arguing the swap transactions were made as part of a collaborative decision among economic policy-makers.
The Supreme Court ruled Mr Rerngchai was not guilty of recklessness resulting in the damage and upheld the Appeal Court's ruling acquitting him in the case, Thanakorn Waekwaree, Mr Rerngchai's representative, said after the ruling.