The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has summoned eight politicians and senior officials involved in scrapping the Klong Dan waste water treatment project for further investigation to determine whether they should foot the 9.8 billion baht compensation bill which the state must pay the construction company.
The eight were identified as former environment minister Prapat Panyachatrak, former chief of the Department of Special Investigation Tarit Pengdit, former chief of the Department of Pollution Control Apichai Chawacharoenphan, former chief of the committee scrutinising the Klong Dan project Siraphop Duangsodsri, and four of his officials, Yongyuth Srisatyachon, Prapoj Klaisuban, Samer Limchuwong and Manu Thongsri.
Mr Siraphop, who is now the Phum Jai Thai Party director, said a ministry committee issued the summons. This follows a Supreme Administrative Court verdict from 2014 that said the Department of Pollution Control should pay 9.8 billion baht to the NVPSKG consortium. The cabinet, late last year, also approved the payment to the consortium. The first payment of more than three billion baht has been made, with the rest to be made this year.
The ministry's summons said that in January 2003, Mr Prapat, the environment minister at the time, set up the committee to scrutinise the contract for the Klong Dan wastewater treatment project as there were many complaints about the project's transparency. Its findings led to the decision to scrap the contract.
Mr Siraphop insisted his committee, which Mr Tarit also sat on, did its job carefully and didn't create any damage to the state.
He said the committee found clear evidence that consulting company Northwest had not signed a contract with NVPSKG, a breach of the agreement with the department.
It wanted Northwest to share responsibility with the consortium if any damages occurred. Northwest refused to do so, saying that it was only a technical consulting company and would not take any responsibility.
Mr Siraphop said the committee suggested the Department of Pollution Control should inform its contract partner that the contract was incomplete and the contract partner should explain its concerns to the department.
"I didn't ask the department to cancel the contract as it was not the committee's responsibility. I just made a suggestion based on the facts and the country's interest for a better decision on the case," he said.
Mr Siraphop said he would submit documents to defend his action by next month. If the fact-finding committee charges him, he will seek redress through the Central Administrative Court.
The department refused to pay the consortium, saying the contract was illegal despite the fact that construction was set to be completed.