A

ctivists said that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) should investigate allegations of attempted bribery reportedly perpetrated by Muhammad Nazaruddin, a lawmaker from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) activists Febri Diansyah and Emerson Yuntho said it was the
task of the KPK to determine whether the S$120,000 (US$97,160) in cash, allegedly from Nazaruddin, was a bribe, gratuity or just “friendly money”.

Constitutional Court chief Justice Mahfud MD and Yudhoyono spoke to the press on Friday, saying that Nazaruddin attempted to give money to court secretary-general Janedjri M. Gaffar in September last year. The court returned the money.

Hours after the disclosure, calls for the KPK to investigate Nazaruddin and for the court to make an official report to the KPK emerged.

Both the KPK and Mahfud, however, implied that they would employ a wait-and-see approach.

On Saturday, Mahfud said he would not take legal steps because the money was not a bribe, as Nazaruddin was not implicated in any case of wrongdoing with the court at that time. He insisted it was a matter of ethics.

“The money might be gratuity,” he said, as quoted by Antara in Samarinda, East Kalimantan. He said he did not report the gratuity to the KPK because he did not see any point.

“If I reported the gratuity to the KPK, the body would not investigate the provider, even though
the money was suspicious.” Reports on gratuities, he said, would
be closed with a conclusion of whether or not the recipient could accept the gift. There would not be legal measures because the matter was different from an ethical issue, he added.

On the same day, KPK spokesman Johan Budi said they would not immediately question Nazaruddin, as they would first gather more information. “The KPK, of course, will follow up the case, if we receive information and data about [Nazaruddin’s money]. The information and data could be from Mahfud or the court secretary-general.”

Graft activists said either one should move first or nothing would happen. “The options now are Mahfud could report the case to the KPK, or the KPK should take the initiative to investigate the case,” Febri told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

He expressed concern about why the court did not report the money to the KPK. “It is not enough to say Nazaruddin has no business in the KPK as reason to return the money to Nazaruddin, rather than reporting it to the KPK,” he said.

On Friday, Mahfud said the court was confronting a dilemma regarding the money. Nazaruddin, who is also a House of Representatives Commission III legislator overseeing legal affairs, which is a working partner with the court, threatened to “wreak havoc” in the Constitutional Court if they rejected the money, Mahfud said.

Mahfud said Nazaruddin reportedly offered the money as part of a conspiracy to later smear the court’s reputation, if he saw fit. Another motive might have been to curry favor for future cases. “He could claim to have influence in the court if he handles the cases of certain regents.”

Johan said the KPK has not received information and data related to the money from Nazaruddin to court officials. Asked whether the KPK would take the initiative on the case, Johan said, “The key objective is to first get the information and data.”

A number of lawmakers from the Democratic Party are not happy with Mahfud’s disclosure.

Outspoken Democratic Party member Ruhut Sitompul accused Mahfud of wanting to take the stage to run for the upcoming presidential election. “Why didn’t Mahfud report the case to the KPK? Don’t take advantage of someone who is not in a good condition,” he said.

Mahfud responded to Ruhut’s accusation, saying “[Ruhut] is just a comedian.”