Board director Vuthiphong Priebjrivat yesterday said the committee would question them as to why they failed to oppose Prasit Kowilaikul's chairmanship of the arbitration panel that in January ruled in favour of True against TOT in their network-access dispute.

TOT president Somkual Buraminhentr said the probe would target former information and communications-technology minister Surapong Suebwonglee, former TOT chairman Sathit Limpongpan and former acting TOT president Aran Permpibool.

The move came after the Auditor-General's Office sent a letter to TOT chairman Saprang Kalayanamitr on Thursday asking the agency to question relevant parties about allegations they did not oppose Prasit's chairmanship.

Prasit is currently PM's office minister. He was associated with the Charoen Pokphand Group (CP), True's parent.

True, which holds TOT's concession, filed its case against TOT with the arbitration panel on August 21, 2002, claiming a share of benefits gained by TOT from providing cellular services on True's network.

On April 26 and May 20, 2004, Prasit informed TOT he was an independent director of Allianz CP, an insurance joint venture between CP and German-based Allianz.

His letters informing TOT about the matter reached that company on May 25, 2004. The deadline for TOT to object to his chairmanship of the arbitration panel was June 3, 2004.

However, the auditor-general said TOT did not object to his presence on the panel.

"The office views that TOT's ignorance to use its right to object to Prasit's chairmanship of the arbitration panel amounts to a failure to protect the national interest, causing TOT a possible loss of more than Bt9 billion," the auditor-general said in a statement sent to TOT.

The auditor-general added that TOT should determine the reasons for such ignorance.

Somkual claimed that according to the board meeting's minutes for June 9, 2004, Aran told the board that Prasit's involvement in the arbitration panel was not a conflict of interest. The board voted to back that opinion the same day.

The same arbitration panel ruled on January 17, 2006, that in regard to lost revenues up to August 22, 2002, TOT had to pay True more than Bt9 billion, plus interest, within 60 days.

The ruling said True was entitled to benefits derived from TOT's provision of special services on True's network and from TOT's permission for others to provide special services on True's network.

For the period after August 22, 2002, TOT must pay True half of the benefits gained by TOT from accessing True's network.

TOT appealed to the Central Administrative Court last April 20, asking it to overrule the ruling.

Vuthiphong said that as of now, the total sum TOT had to pay to True was Bt14 billion.

He added that once the fact-finding panel found the person responsible for TOT's possible Bt14-billion loss, TOT would file a complaint with the Civil Court against that person to claim compensation. The panel will also report the progress of the probe to the auditor-general.

Usanee Mongkolporn

The Nation