Thai Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case of affected villagers in 8 Mekong provinces of the Xayaburi Dam
On May 3, 2022, Thai Supreme Administrative Court had held its first trail for case no. 493/2555 and number case TUE 11/2016.
For the case of villagers of 8 Mekong provinces suing for unlawful power purchase agreements from Xayaburi Dam, some agencies have been sued such as Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) National Energy Policy Committee, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
The judiciary of the owner of the case has read a summary of the facts in the case to the litigant. As part of the date of the hearing, the order will be sent to the prosecutor at a later date.
The court set out two issues in the diagnosis whether the five litigants neglected their duties as required by law to properly disseminate information and whether they had conducted adequate and serious hearings, and whether the five litigants neglected their duties as required by law to conduct cross-border environmental impact assessments in the preparation of electricity purchase agreements.
The court gave the litigant a verbal statement accompanying the written statement, which was filed with the court today. The 4th prosecutor, Omboon Thipsuna, announced that she was originally domiciled in Nong Khai province, having worked as a shopkeeper since the Mekong malfunction in 2013.
More than 800 questions about the dam’s impact were asked, but there was no answer: “I hope the court is reliant on providing reparations for the impact.” Mrs. Omboon made a statement at the end.
Meanwhile, Mr. Amnat Trijak, the 11th prosecutor, announced that he had land on the Mekong riverfront where his mother-in-law had received 3 rai in 2019.
There was a landing erosion, resulting in the loss of land to only one job. This is the impact those living on the Mekong to get now is the loss of their land. The judiciary who announced the case dismissed the case without giving a reason.
The statement was filed in writing with the faculty in seven seconds of comment. He later walked out of the administrative court.
The villagers who filed the lawsuit were sobbing because they were feeling overwhelmed and saddened by the outcome of the hearing, with Omboon Thipsuna saying in tears: “Tears falling on behalf of the Mekong people, the information of the villagers, the impact of the Mekong dam is almost meaningless,” said Ms. Rattanamanee Polkla, a lawyer.
The Community Information Center Foundation said the case had been at the Supreme Administrative Court for seven years since 2015. He, as head of the legal team, also gave hope to the Supreme Administrative Court because in the Lower Court, the Supreme Administrative Court also ordered the case and indicated that the functioning of the prosecution unit affects the people.
The court then accepted the case. It hopes to establish norms to protect the people. To be the norm of government agencies working on the Mekong River, even today the judiciary who announced the case.
Using the word consensus means that principles and reasons may differ from the lower courts, which can be seen when the verdict is made. “Today, the villagers hope to hear more about the case, and the villagers do not know how to act.
When there was so much strict access to the press room, the case came as a shock. Unable to make a statement as intended and prepared.
It is deemed that the administrative court may have to be an open court because the administrative court is reliant on complaining about the actions of government officials.
If the villagers cannot make a complaint, it will be against the principle of setting up an administrative court,” said the lawyer, Ms. Peeraporn Deeresan.
Regional Campaign Director, International Rivers Organization said the case has regional significance because there are currently several dam projects on the Mekong River waiting to sign power purchase agreements with the EGAT, such as the Luang Prabang Dam project, Pak Bang Dam Striped Mouth Sanakham.
Protecting the participation rights of those affected will also be the norm to prevent cross-border impact damage from other projects on the Mekong River because power purchase agreements are one of the most important documents guaranteed to be built or not built.
The Xayaburi Dam case began in 2011. Residents of 8 provinces on the banks of the Mekong River heard about the construction of the Xayaburi Dam, producing 1,270 megawatts of installation.
On the main Mekong River by 6 banks in Thailand. The Company has the EGAT who is the main purchaser of 95% of electricity and the Department of Water Resources as the Secretariat of the Mekong River.
Thailand has held a public hearing in accordance with the PNPCA pre-consultation process. According to the 1995 Mekong Agreement, People in Thailand have expressed concern over the cross-border impact of only 200 kilometers from the dam without providing a cross-border impact study report.
A power purchase agreement was later signed between Xayaburi Power and the EGAT.
In 2011 And no information has been made public. Therefore, villagers located in 8 Mekong provinces in Thailand.
Therefore, it has been agreed that the administrative court must be sued so that the state protects the right to freedom that may be affected by the Xayaburi Dam project.
Although the dam is in the sovereign territory of the Lao People’s Democratic State, when the Mekong River is an international river that runs through six countries, the potential cross-border impact of the dam is inevitable.
Then, On June 24, 2014, The Federal Administrative Court has read the Order of the Supreme Administrative Court, in accordance with Order 8/2014, to take the case into consideration in part.
On the third charge. Ask the court to have a verdict or order for the five plaintiffs to be granted.
Perform constitutional duties. laws and government resolutions, including proper information and dissemination of information; Adequate and serious hearings and environmental, health, social impact assessments in both Thai and neighboring countries, which will be affected by cross-border hazards.
Before taking any action regarding the procurement of electricity, the Saiyaburi Dam project.
The court determined that the 37 litigants were arrested. As a stakeholder or directly affected and more specifically than individuals who do not live or work in the 8 provinces along the Mekong River, it is inevitable that the suffering of damage is inevitably suffered.
The Supreme Administrative Court’s order also states that due to abstinence from the actions of the five plaintiffs, the litigants were not allowed to do so. And the amendments or mitigations, or damages received by the 37 litigants, must be enforced by instructing the five plaintiffs to perform their constitutional duties.
Laws and government resolutions, including proper information and dissemination of information; As well as listening adequately and seriously and assessing the environmental, health and social impacts at the request of the 37 litigants under Section 72, Paragraph 1(2) of the Administrative Courts and Administrative Procedures Act B.E. 2542 (1999).
The Xayaburi Dam project is built in the International River. International law such as the PNPCA must be followed because it is a common international river management rule.
The Xayaburi project is a river barrier project that could affect Thailand. Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam This is a cross-border effect, which makes it difficult for litigants who file lawsuits using community rights to sue as an exercise of their right to protect themselves from being affected.
The court ordered the amendment of the order of the Lower Administrative Court to accept the indictments of the 37 plaintiffs only on the third charge.
As part of the lawsuit, the five plaintiffs are asked to perform their constitutional duties. laws and government resolutions, including proper information and dissemination of information; Adequate and serious feedback Environmental, health and social impact assessments to consider Unless that is resolved in accordance with the order of the Lower Court.
Source: Nongkhai Online News, Pattarawin Leepan