T

he Chief Judge at the South Jakarta District Court has banged the gavel - sentencing Thursday the former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Antasari Azhar to 18 years in prison for masterminding the murder of businessman Nasruddin Zulkarnaen in March last year.

The same court also sentenced Thursday businessmen Sigid Haryo Wibisono and Jerry Hermawan Lo, as well as senior police officer Williardi Wizard to 15, five and 12 years imprisonment, respectively, for complicity in the same murder case.

As citizens of a Rechstaat, which upholds the Rule of Law in resolving all legal disputes, we have to respect the decisions made by the judges regarding the murder case. Furthermore, the judges' freedom and independence in making decisions are guaranteed in both the 1945 Constitution and the 2004 Judicial Institution Law. It is therefore the judges' sole liberty in determining whether the defendants are guilty, including each defendant's level of involvement and the jail term imposed on them.

However, without disrespecting the judges' constitutional authority, the court's verdict on the high-profile murder case is arguably controversial - being structurally inconsistent and disregarding common sense and the judges' own oath to forward conscience and uphold the truth in the decision-making process.

Take the verdict on Antasari for example. The jail term imposed on him not only has angered the murder victim's family and their quest for justice, but also disappointed the prosecutors as it is far below the death sentence previously sought by them. It is very uncommon to see a defendant, who has been charged with death penalty for premeditated murder and declared guilty by the court, only sentenced to 18 years in prison. Should the judges have considered Antasari's good manner during the court proceedings as the mitigating factor against him, it would be logical if he was sentenced to life or 20 years in jail at a minimum.

The verdict on Antasari was also controversial as the judges had discounted the evidence and testimonies presented during the court proceedings and merely based their verdict on the pre-trial dossiers submitted by the police and prosecutors.