In its objection, the KPK had argued that Setya’s questioning of the status of the antigraft body’s investigators who handled the pre-investigation and investigation of his case was invalid. 

KPK legal bureau head Setiadi said that if Setya’s legal team wanted to question the status of the commission’s investigators they should do so in the Jakarta Administrative Court, not by means of a pretrial motion.

Cepi disagreed with Setiadi. The judge said the status of KPK investigators, which had been questioned by Setya and his legal team, was not related to civil service-related administrative disputes.

“Therefore, the judge concludes here that the matter raised by the plaintiff is not a legal dispute so it can be handled through a pretrial hearing,” he said.

The KPK also said in its objection that several points raised by Setya and his legal team had touched on the substance of his case. This was because Setya wanted an assessment of the legality of evidence the KPK had used to name him a graft suspect.

The KPK said authentication was part of the core trial process and it was the authority of the Jakarta Corruption Court to handle such matters.

Responding Cepi said the judge would assess the legality of evidence during the pretrial hearing. (hol/ebf)

Popular

What Indonesia can learn from the Iran–Israel war

Police seek to polish image with new video platform amid public distrust

Two arrested in North Sumatra for allegedly producing vape liquid laced with narcotics