L

awyer Fredrich Yunadi and medical doctor Bimanesh Sutarjo might have thought they were simply doing their job when they helped admit graft suspect Setya Novanto to Medika Permata Hijau Hospital in Jakarta following a car accident last November.

Their actions, however, have raised questions on whether they obstructed justice as some have argued they helped Setya evade the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which is investigating his alleged role in graft surrounding the high-profile e-ID case.

The antigraft body named Fredrich, who resigned from the embattled politician’s legal team last December, and Bimanesh suspects on Wednesday for obstruction of justice by allegedly aiding the politician in his flight.

KPK commissioner Basaria Panjaitan said the two allegedly conspired to manipulate Setya’s medical records and that, by admitting him to the hospital, they allowed Setya to avoid KPK questioning. The KPK eventually detained Setya after doctors at Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital and independent doctors from the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) announced that Setya was healthy enough to be investigated.

As a result, the IDI launched an ethics probe against Bimanesh months ago, or days before the brouhaha surrounding Setya’s hospitalization ended with his detention.

According to the Indonesian Code of Medical Ethics, all doctors are required to work with high standards, free from distractions that might affect their principle of independence.

“We will ensure the investigation into the alleged ethical violations reaches a fair verdict based on the facts and testimonies from every party; thus, it will move forward in parallel with the KPK investigation,” IDI secretary-general M. Adib Khumaidi told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

Meanwhile, the Association of Indonesian Advocates (Peradin) reacted strongly against the suspect status of Fredrich, who is a member of the association, saying the lawyer should first be brought to Peradin’s ethical committee.

“We will set up an ethical investigation, while trying to communicate with the KPK regarding the case,” Peradin deputy secretary-general Rivai Kusumanegara told the Post.

Fredrich failed on Friday to appear for a KPK questioning, which, according to his lawyer Sapriyanto Refa, was because he had requested that the KPK reschedule it to allow Peradin to first complete an ethics investigation into him.

Sapriyanto, who is also from Peradin, visited the KPK that day to confirm whether it had granted their request on Thursday to postpone the investigation.

Advocate and legal expert Irmanputra Sidin said naming a lawyer a suspect was unconstitutional as lawyers had legal immunity, as mandated under the Advocate Law.

“If there are any allegations of violations while doing their jobs, the suspected lawyer should be investigated first by the honorary board of the professional organization, unless it’s a legal violation such as murder or rape,” Irmanputra said in a statement recently.

KPK spokesman Febri Diansyah, however, dismissed any criticism over the suspect naming, saying the antigraft body had “acted accordingly regarding any attempts deemed as obstructing their investigation into the e-ID graft case.”

Unlike Fredrich, Bimanesh showed up for KPK questioning on Friday.