The Court of Appeal of Phnom Penh on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a lower court against union leader Morm Rithy — a decision which has been condemned as unjust by his lawyer and unionists who attended the trial.
Rithy was first “convicted” in absentia by Phnom Penh Municipal Court in May 2024, but he appealed to the court to try his case again in December. However, his earlier conviction was retained, where he was sentenced to 18 months in Prey Sar prison for inciting and discrediting the judicial decision, and fined two million riel ($500).
Rithy, president of the Cambodian Tourism and Service Workers’ Federation (CTSWF) and vice president of Cambodian Labor Confederation (CLC), was arrested and charged in Phnom Penh in May last year under Articles 494, 495, and 523 of the Criminal Code.
The arrest follows a lawsuit by Chinese-owned Jin Bei Group. Rithy stated in a post on Facebook that he had “lost faith in the court’s decision” after a casino worker was charged for allegedly committing a crime in 2022.
He made a live video on Facebook criticizing Jin Bei 2 casino for accusing female worker Morm Sreyleak of “helping” a guest win $18,000, and “not allowing” that guest to visit the casino again. He also criticized the court for detaining the worker without evidence.
Defense lawyer Sam Charoeun said the decision on Rithy was unfair to his client, declining to comment further.
Rithy’s wife Kong Soda, who also said the decision was unjust, said she will discuss with the lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said her husband’s social media post was not intended to discredit the court or incite people.
“What he said on Facebook was meant to expedite a resolution to a casino worker’s case,” she said.
“I beg the court to reconsider [the verdict] and release him from prison because he had no intention of jeopardizing the court’s decision,” Soda said.
She expressed the hardship of supporting her family, while her husband was behind bars, as she had to bear the burden of looking after their four children, aged 6 to 20.
Coalition of Cambodian Apparel Workers’ Democratic deputy president Ath Thorn, who attended the trial, expressed disappointment with the upper court’s conviction, calling it unfair for unionists.
“I think this case is related to a labor dispute involving union issues, and it should not have been brought to court,” he said.
“When union representatives express opinions to protect their members and are then arrested, it discourages them from defending workers in the future, and employers are left to freely exploit workers,” Thorn said.
He also said Rithy did not organize a protest in 2022 despite him saying he would. There was no such activity that year which the incitement charge was based on, he added. “A leader has the right to advocate for a resolution to workers’ problems.”
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal did not allow a CamboJA reporter to cover Rithy’s hearing, claiming that the “courtroom was full”. The same court has denied access three times to a reporter to cover former opposition leader Kem Sokha’s hearing last year — citing similar reasons each time.
In another hearing, the Court of Appeal upheld the Phnom Penh Municipal Court’s decision on government critic Ny Nak who was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison for incitement to commit discrimination and public defamation.
Nak’s charge stemmed from his criticism over information on a Facebook account belonging to “Heng Sour”, stating that Heng Sour had obtained 91 hectares of land. The ministry spokesperson denied that the account belonged to the minister.
The court also rejected a bail request for Chin Bunnaroth, an official of the opposition Nation Power Party, who was arrested and charged with incitement in November last year.
Defense lawyer Choung Choungy, who represented both cases, expressed disappointment with the decision to uphold the convictions, which meant his clients will remain behind bars.
“I regret that the court did not provide justice for them,” he said, declining to speak further about the cases.
Nak’s wife, Sok Synet, who attended the hearing, echoed the lawyer’s sentiments, noting that there was still no justice for her husband. “His post on social media was an exercise of his right to freedom of expression as a citizen.”
