By Kesinee Taengkhio

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders yesterday rejected a petition by ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra's children for a gag order on the Bt76-billion (S$3.23 billion) assets-seizure case against him.

"The petition failed to prove contempt designed to sway the judicial decision," said the court's secretary Anurak Sanga-areekul during a press conference about the decision.

He said the high court's decision was in line with its rejection last August of Thaksin's similar request for a gag order on members of the defunct Asset Examination Committee (AEC).

Two of Thaksin's children, Panthongtae and Pinthongta, on Thursday asked the high court to order AEC members to stop airing their views on the case. They argued that remarks by Udom Fuangfung and Kaewsan Atibodhi as published by two newspapers were biased and designed to influence the upcoming verdict, scheduled for February 26.

In its ruling, the high court said that after studying the two news reports cited in the petition, the legal opinions aired did not constitute contempt as per Article 30 of the Civil Procedural Code and Article 18 of the Procedural Code for Offences involving Political Office Holders.

Udom and Kaewsan circulated two separate arguments outlining legal principles in favour of a complete seizure of the impounded assets. They tried to counter the defence arguments favouring either a complete release of assets or a partial seizure.

Anurak said yesterday that the nine judges in the case each had more than 30 years of experience in their job and that they would not be easily swayed by pressure. "They were in similar situations for many times. I don't think they would allow the pressure to affect their work," he said.

Meanwhile, AEC members insisted yesterday that in commenting on the case, they simply pointed to relevant legal points, with no intention of swaying the judgement.

Nam Yimyaem, former chairman of the AEC, disputed the claim by Thaksin's children that comments by AEC members put the defence at a disadvantage in the case. He said the AEC members merely pointed to different legal points and explained about how the AEC worked, without bias or hostility towards the defendant.

Udom said Panthongtae and Pinthongta had the right to file their petition. But he insisted that the AEC members were just trying to educate the public about the legal principles and their comments were not based on bias.

Kaewsan said that he was trying to explain to the public the facts involved in the case. "I don't think this would affect the case," he added.

Investigations by the AEC, which was set up after the coup of 2006, led to a number of cases against Thaksin and other members of his Cabinet.