Former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra on Friday attended the 7th examination of defence witnesses in a case she is accused of dereliction of duty in the loss-ridden rice-pledging scheme.
A large number of supporters turned up at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions to give her moral support on her arrival amid tight security.
They included former deputy prime ministers Pongthep Thepkanchana and Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisal, former commerce minister Yanyong Puangraj, acting Pheu Thai leader Viroj Pao-in, and acting party secretary-general Phumtham Vechayachai.
Ampon Kitti-ampon, a former cabinet secretary-general, and Thanusak Lek-uthai, a former deputy finance minister in the Yingluck government, were to testify today as defence witnesses.
Ms Yingluck said before attending the court hearing that she would fight in every way within the scope of the law against an administrative order for her to pay 35.7 billion baht in compensation for losses in the rice-pledging scheme.
"I will exercise all my rights through every legal channel available to fight the allegations and the unfair order," she said, adding that her legal team was studying the order.
Two rice crops during 2012-14 incurred losses of 178 billion baht, of which Ms Yingluck has been ordered to pay 20%.
On the government's pledge to seek others involved to pay the remaining 80%, Ms Yingluck said she wanted the government to properly follow legal procedures to ensure justice for all.
On her ongoing attempt to help farmers suffering from the rice price slump, which was seen by the government as a publicity stunt, the former prime minister said in this situation all concerned had better turn their attention to farmers instead of raising an argument via the media.
On a proposed maximum penalty of death against politicians found guilty of selling and buying political positions under the draft political party bill by Peerasak Porjit, a deputy chairman of the National Legislative Assembly, Ms Yingluck said she had no comment.
However, she said an issue involving few people should not be used as the basis for rules to be enforced on a large number of people, adding that doing so could cause problems difficult to solve in the future.