I

n a move that highlighted the rivalry between police and non-police investigators within the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), a police officer holding a senior position within the commission attended on Tuesday the latest hearing of a controversial legislative inquiry into the antigraft body’s performance.

The presence of Brig. Gen. Aris Budiman, the KPK’s director of investigations, at the hearing defied the KPK’s official stance regarding the inquiry: that it is a legally flawed challenge to its independence and that the KPK will not answer any summons to attend.

The message that Aris sought to convey to the lawmakers was clear: that his job in the KPK has been seriously undermined by a faction within the commission that opposes his policies.

He cited as an example his recent attempt to recruit three-star police investigators to assist the KPK’s investigative desk, which was immediately shut down by what he called “the opposition.”

The KPK official did not name names, but it was clear that he was referring to top investigator Novel Baswedan, who wrote an email to the KPK leadership protesting against Aris’ proposal, which he said could shift the balance of police and non-police investigators within the commission.

The KPK currently has around 90 investigators, of whom 55 are from the police.

“I got an email on Feb. 14 that attacked me personally because I was accused of having no integrity,” Aris told the hearing.

“I was so angry and humiliated. I am not an officer that can be bribed because I sincerely work to fight [corruption],” he said, adding that he later reported the matter to his superiors to inform them that something was wrong with the institution.

The KPK leadership then issued two warning letters to Novel for using “offensive” terms against Aris, but subsequently revoked them following criticism from other employees and former KPK commissioners, including Busyro Muqoddas.

Novel, now being treated in Singapore after two unidentified men hurled acid on his face in April, is a former police officer. He recently claimed that he had been targeted by a police general because of his job.

Aris was appointed as KPK investigation director in September 2015 not long after the KPK was involved in a conflict with the National Police over the former’s decision to name then National Police deputy chief Gen. Budi Gunawan a corruption suspect.

Prior to his assignment to the KPK, Aris served as deputy director of the police’s anti-graft squad.

Activist Donal Fariz from Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) lambasted Aris for attending the inquiry hearing, describing it as “unethical.”

“Even KPK commissioners would not so readily attend meetings with lawmakers when summoned,” he told The Jakarta Post. “He should have been wiser in dealing with the House, which is a political institution.”

Aris’ decision to attend the meeting, Donald added, was even more questionable as he was currently under investigation by the KPK’s internal supervision team.

Aris came into the spotlight recently following a statement by graft suspect Miryam S. Haryani that he and six other KPK investigators in charge of the probe into massive corruption revolving around the procurement for the electronic identity (e-ID) project frequently met lawmakers from the House’s Commission III overseeing legal affairs amid the investigation process.

Miryam, a former lawmaker from the Hanura Party, accused Aris and his colleagues of having leaked the developments of the investigation to Commission III lawmakers. According to Miryam, they also offered assistance to help lawmakers avoid KPK investigation in return for Rp 2 billion (US$150,000) in cash.

Miryam, who is one of the key witnesses in the graft case, which caused Rp 2.3 trillion in state losses, made her statement when questioned by KPK investigators Novel and Ambarita Damanik in December last year, the recording of which was played during a recent court hearing.

The KPK was established in 2002 on the pretext that the police force was so plagued by graft that it was impossible for the institution to effectively combat corruption, particularly cases involving its own members.