Since the Corruption Court sentenced state prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan to 20 years in prison for accepting a US$660,000 bribe from businesswoman Artalyta Suryani, public pressure has been mounting for authorities to reopen the Bank Indonesia liquidity support (BLBI) case involving tycoon Sjamsul Nursalim. However, Attorney General Hendarman Supandji has consistently defied this demand. The Jakarta Post's Abdul Khalik recently spoke with Andi Bachtiar, one of the judges who convicted Urip, about the possibility of using the verdict as the legal basis for reopening the BLBI case.
Question: Attorney General Hendarman Supandji said Urip's sentence had nothing to do with the BLBI case against Sjamsul Nursalim, so there's no new evidence to reopen the case. What is your comment?
Answer: That's his version of the story. To be honest, there's clearly a connection. Urip's sentence was based on evidence that came up during the trial. Those facts must be considered new evidence for reopening Sjamsul's BLBI case as the bribery led to the halt of the case in the first place.
Artalyta gave Urip over Rp 6 billion on the day both were arrested. How could she give him the money if she wanted nothing in return from Urip? We have a taped conversation of Artalyta asking for money from Sjamsul's wife, and Urip was the head of the investigation team on Sjamsul's case. The money offered was compensation as several days earlier the case was dropped by the Attorney General's Office (AGO).
It makes sense that there was some very important business to be done for Sjamsul if Artalyta asked for more money for the prosecutors. Of course, that business was the investigation into the BLBI cases. It is this new evidence, not the verdict itself, but the facts that came out during the trials, which were included in the judgment.
The decision to drop the case must be approved by Urip's superiors. Do you see any indication that higher-ranking prosecutors were involved in dropping the investigation?
At 10 a.m. on March 1, 2008, Artalyta called a woman whom I believe was Sjamsul's wife. Artalyta said: 'Please Bu, we've got a shortage as we need more for all the attorney general deputies and their secretaries, because we haven't given them anything'. Sjamsul's wife replied that she had the money available.
At 1 p.m., Kemas (Yahya Rahman, then attorney general deputy for special crimes) called Artalyta to inform her of the (AGO's) decision to drop the case. Artalyta said: 'Very good, I am ready, just take this'. I believe the 'shortage' Artalyta was referring to was an addition to the Rp 6 billion, which had been in her account since March 27. This was not enough, so Artalyta asked for more for Urip's bosses.
The conversation was originally between Urip, Artalyta and Kemas. It's impossible that it wasn't genuine when Kemas asked Artalyta: 'Have you heard my decision (to stop the BLBI probe)? There won't be any more problems'.
And what was the business between Kemas, a high-ranking prosecutor who contacted Artalyta, a businesswoman who is just a senior high school graduate?
During the conversation between Kemas and Artalyta, Kemas said 'My boss has received it'. So, I asked Kemas 'Who's your boss? What has your boss received?' At the time, Kemas said he said all those things simply to end the conversation with Artalyta. But we know who Kemas' boss is.
The KPK seemed to stop only at Urip. Why didn't the judges order the KPK to investigate Kemas and the others?
We can't issue such an order unless we change the law. What we can do is present all the existing evidence from the trials, which could open the way for investigators to follow up these facts. Now, it's up to the KPK.
What about the principle of non-retroactivity? Is it going to hamper the KPK's ability to take over the BLBI cases?
No, it won't. The principle is related to the substance of the case, not the procedure. So, the KPK can use the 1971 law on corruption rather than the 1999 law.
But I think Urip's trial pointed to the fact that Glenn Yusuf (former Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency head) helped Sjamsul overstate the value of assets given to the state.
The KPK can begin investigating the BLBI case based on the fact that Glenn's willingness to give Urip Rp 1 billion to avoid being named a suspect indicated the AGO knew the assets had been overvalued.
What do you think about the proposed bill on the anti-graft court?
Currently, we, the ad-hoc judges, are appointed and sworn in by the President. So, we can only be removed by the President, although all the administrative affairs regarding us are still taken care of by the Supreme Court. This makes us more independent when making decisions.
In the future, things will be different as the proposed bill gives authority to district court heads to appoint and swear in new ad-hoc judges. You can compare the credibility of current ad-hoc judges and future ones yourself.
