T

he Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) made headlines in January this year when it named Emirsyah Satar, the former president director of state-owned flag carrier Garuda Indonesia, a corruption suspect for allegedly accepting bribes from United Kingdom-based engineering firm Rolls-Royce Holdings.

Emirsyah was accused of accepting bribes amounting to US$2 million in cash and assets pertaining to the procurement of airplane engines produced by the engineering giant during his tenure as president director between 2005 and 2014.

More than nine months have passed since the announcement was made, but the antigraft body, which is currently under scrutiny from the House of Representatives, has yet to complete the case dossier for Emirsyah, let alone send him to the corruption court.

The bribery case implicating Emirsyah is one of several KPK cases investigations that have stalled. Four other cases have yet to be solved by the KPK, including one implicating Richard Joost Lino, the president director of state port operator Pelindo II.

The antigraft body named Lino a graft suspect for allegedly using his authority to enrich himself in the procurement of three quay container cranes from China worth $20 million in 2010.

Lino, who was officially charged by the KPK in December 2015, has held the suspect status for nearly two years.

The cases have been stalled for a number of reasons.

The KPK said it had yet to determine the state losses that incurred by Emirsyah’s and Lino’s cases, as the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and the Development Finance Controller (BPKP) have yet to complete their probes.

KPK investigators have questioned dozens of witnesses in both cases. In Lino’s case, 55 witnesses were questioned, the latest being former Pelindo II finance director Orias Petrus Moedak in October.

The commission, however, has struggled to collect evidence located overseas to build a stronger case against the suspects.

“[With Lino’s case] we were hindered because we haven’t obtained several [pieces of] evidence abroad as we don’t have jurisdiction there,” KPK spokesman Febri Diansyah told The Jakarta Post.

He added that the antigraft body was finalizing plans on joint investigation with several law enforcement institutions in other countries.

“The graft investigations in several countries might take a long time depending on the complexity,” Febri said.

“We will keep trying to gather evidence from abroad to build strong cases against each suspect.”

The KPK is not a new player in resolving transnational graft cases, having previously resolved two cases abroad, including one centered on the use of bribery at state oil and gas firm Pertamina to secure a 2004-2005 fuel additive contract worth $4 million for UK-based fuel additives manufacturer Innospec Limited.

According to the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP), the suspect status of an individual remains until investigators complete their case dossier to be handed to the court, unless the latter issues an investigation termination warrant (SP3). The antigraft body, as mandated in the 2002 KPK Law, is not authorized to issue an SP3.

The lengthy investigations have sparked criticism on whether the KPK violated the suspects’ rights by practically leaving them in a legal limbo.

However, University of Indonesia (UI) law expert Ganjar Bondan said suspect naming was a necessary part of an investigation.

“There is no deadline for investigations on graft cases,” Ganjar said. “I think it’s allowed as long as there’s a need to probe deeper to resolve the case.”

The argument was echoed by Transparency International Indonesia (TII) secretary-general Dadang Trisasongko, who said that as long as the antigraft body did not detain the suspects, no regulations have been violated.