Following the September 19 coup, the junta gave a sweeping mandate for the AEC to look into graft violations involving ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his minions.

In an attempt to uproot Thaksin's tentacles of power, the junta recruited criminal law experts and high-profile graft busters to fill 11 seats of the AEC under the chairmanship of stern judge Nam Yimyaem.

Five months into its one-year term, the AEC has grouped its investigations into 13 key cases. But the majority of probes are still in the fact-finding stage and only a handful have reached a hearing stage for possible indictments.

According to the AEC's projection, March is the earliest date when one or two cases might be complete and ready for judicial review.

It is understandable that the AEC faces a daunting prospect to uncover evidence of wrongdoings committed in high places.

For five years the Thaksin regime had churned out lopsided policies to favour selected businesses and enrich its supporters. But its alleged graft violations and policy abuses are not the kind of simple fraud or embezzlement that can be solved overnight.

And while evidence gathering may be difficult, it is not insurmountable in light of the powerful mandate entrusted to the AEC.

Thaksin is expected to mount a rigorous defence for himself, his family members and cohorts. However, only a few tax-related cases have reached the level for defence rebuttals.

Most cases have shown slow progress due to the prosecution's perceived difficulties.

In the first few months of taking office, many AEC members gave daily interviews convincing the public they were close to bringing ousted and corrupt leaders to justice.

But the graft busters have lately blamed a myriad of obstacles - including the slow postal service - for making little headway on its probes.

Many of the obstacles cited by the AEC seem to be the consequences of its actions rather than those mounted by the defence.

For example, the AEC has blamed relevant government agencies for failing to lodge complaints outlining alleged crimes committed by the ousted leaders. The complaints will form the basis of looming indictments.

In one specific case, it argued that the land investigation involving Thaksin's wife Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra had stalled because the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF) refused to act as the injured party in the land deal.

AEC chairman Nam ruled that there was a conflict of interest, because Thaksin was a government official supervising the fund - and his wife was banned from entering into a business transaction with the fund.

But the FIDF, in its rebuttal, claimed it was not an injured party because the land transaction allegedly fetched a market price higher than the estimated value. It says it saw no damage in doing business with Pojaman.

The two sides are speaking on different wavelengths for a reason.

If the fund had swiftly lodged a complaint against Pojaman, it would have automatically become the target of investigation for malfeasance. The fund should have checked Pojaman's marital link to Thaksin before concluding the deal.

From the AEC's side, the fund's complaint would amount to a solid basis for the case. But without such a complaint, the AEC would have no fallback should the prosecution fail to win a conviction during the judicial review.

Thaksin and Pojaman could counter sue the AEC into oblivion if they won an acquittal.

A few months back, five tax officials, including revenue director general Sirote Swasdipanich, were fired from their jobs for lapse of duty relating to the tax debacle involving a transfer of Shin shares between Pojaman and her brother Bhanapot Damapong.

Many civil servants saw the punishment as unjust - because the five officials who took the fall before members of the Shinawatra and Damapong

families were forced to pay any taxes.

The bureaucracy will be further demoralised if the AEC demands more sackings of officials without showing any tangible progress in punishing corrupt politicians.

As bureaucrats see it, the AEC stands in isolation and must prove its worth in targeting politicians before demanding co-operation. They want AEC members to show the courage and face up to their job instead of making them shields or scapegoats.

The AEC has no one to blame but itself for rushing to punish officials before indicting politicians.

All is not lost, however, as the AEC still has everything but the complaint from an injured party to proceed with its investigations, however long this takes.

At yesterday's meeting, the government, coup leaders and the AEC reached agreement that relevant agencies would file complaints after the AEC has spelt out indictments.

This is meant to ensure that bureaucrats will not be made to take the fall for the ousted regime. 

Avudh Panananda

The Nation