Members of the Consumer Protection Foundation await a Supreme Administrative Court ruling on the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) on closed-circuit television in the court compound yesterday. The court later said it would hand down the

And embattled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra appears likely to bear the brunt of the outcome.

"The verdict is coming through quickly and this is a good sign," lead complainant Rosana Tositrakul said yesterday, following a final hearing of the case.

In November, during the final preparations to list the country's largest power

producer on the stock market, a network of complainants sought and received an injunction against the initial public offering of Egat shares.

The complainants, led by Rosana, included the Consumers Foundation, many non-government organisations and 2,038 electricity users.

The suspension of Egat's IPO triggered a serious slump in Thaksin's popularity and was seen as a political watershed.

In yesterday's court session, the complainants submitted a closing argument citing seven key objections to the planned privatisation.

The first was that the Egat privatisation, if allowed to proceed, would violate the Constitution because it would deliver the state's obligation to supply power and its national assets into the hands of a private monopoly.

Secondly, the government had violated

the intent of the State Enterprises Corporatisation Act, a blueprint for pri-

vatisation, which prescribes performance boosting - when Egat is a top-notch enterprise.

Third, the government came up with a self-serving interpretation of a Constitution Court verdict to justify its decision to set up Egat Plc, paving the way for privatisation.

Fourth, Egat's property was deemed a national treasure belonging to the people and not transferable to the private domain.

Fifth, the enactment of two royal decrees relating to the Egat privatisation by-passed a mandatory public hearing.

The sixth objection was that the government failed to factor in social and other implications of the privatisation.

The final objection was there was no justification for the government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny of the matter.

In defence, public prosecutor Jira Phanarai said the government strictly followed legal procedures in enacting relevant decrees under royal approval.

Advocacy judge Sermdarunee Tantiwess submitted her written opinion on the matter yesterday but declined to deliver an oral argument.

Under Administrative Court procedures, a designated judge submits an advocacy statement to help form a verdict although the presiding judge has no obligation to heed the advice.

Jaran, the court's presiding judge, said he would release Sermdarunee's statement along with his verdict.

Kesinee Taengkhieo

The Nation