The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) defended its move to name former religious affairs minister Suryadharma Ali a graft suspect in a pretrial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday
he Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) defended its move to name former religious affairs minister Suryadharma Ali a graft suspect in a pretrial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday.
Suryadharma is one of six graft suspects currently challenging the antigraft body's decision to name them suspect by trying to file a pretrial petition ' which many experts say has no legal basis ' to force the KPK to stop investigating their high-profile graft cases. These suspects are following in the footsteps of former candidate for National Police chief Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan, who successfully thwarted the KPK in a pretrial hearing.
In the pretrial hearing on Monday, the former United Development Party (PPP) chairman said the KPK's investigation was politically motivated and that the KPK named him a suspect without collecting any evidence on his offences in the alleged irregularities plaguing the 2012-2013 haj program, which caused Rp 1.8 trillion (US$137.8 million) in state losses.
'We have collected at least two pieces of strong evidence concerning his offences. In addition to that, we have also summoned 43 people to deliver statements and acquired 408 documents,' KPK legal bureau head Catharina M. Girsang said in court.
Catharina further said that it was common for political party officials to suggest that their graft prosecution was ordered by political opponents.
In the pretrial petition, Suryadharma's lawyer, Andreas Nahot Silitonga, accused the KPK of moving against his client to hamper the presidential bid of Gerindra Party chairman Prabowo Subianto, who is Suryadharma's political ally, a move that Andreas said was meant to help Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo win the presidency.
'We've seen these kind of allegations being made in other cases. But we all see that politicians who used the same trick are now in prison after the court found that we had a strong case against them,' Catharina said.
The KPK team also tried to convince the sole presiding judge, Tati Hardianto, that Suryadharma was subject to KPK investigations, since he was a state official when the haj scandal took place as mandated by Article 11 of the Law No. 30/2002 on corruption.
Catharina said that Suryadharma's argument saying that the KPK had no authority to investigate him was baseless.
'According to point B of the Article, it says that the KPK had the right to investigate state officials and law enforcement officers as well as individuals who were connected to alleged corruption committed by state officials and law enforcers,' said another KPK lawyer, Indra Mantong Batti.
The KPK team also offered a time line of its investigation into Suryadharma to counter his allegation that the antigraft body had done little before it named him a suspect.
The KPK received a public complaint in November 2012 regarding massive irregularities plaguing the haj program. The report said Suryadharma had used the haj quota, intended for pilgrims, to go on haj with his relatives and colleagues.
The antigraft body followed up on the report by collecting testimonies and evidence from witnesses.
'Evidence and testimonies confirmed the irregularities. We found that the state lost Rp 3 billion from the Indonesian Haj Organizing Committee (PPIH) recruitment process and in general we found a total of Rp 1.8 trillion in state losses. To follow up the findings, we opened a primary investigation into him on May 9, 2014,' Indra said.
Suryadharma's lawyers said it was better to distribute the haj quota to people close to the minister rather than leave the fund unused because the state had paid the quota in advance.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.