TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsAnalysis: The Nadiem saga: Victory or setback for the justice system
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Education and Culture Minister Nadiem Makarim makes a gesture after the announcement of the Indonesia Onward Cabinet on Oct. 23. (JP/Seto Wardhana)
T
he Chromebook procurement case has become one of Indonesia's highest-profile corruption prosecutions, sparking intense debate over whether it represents a straightforward anti-corruption effort or something far more consequential.
Nine months after the legal process began, and with the court finally delivering its verdict, the case has evolved far beyond a routine procurement dispute. Instead, it has become a litmus test for the Indonesian justice system to distinguish between policy misjudgment, abuse of authority and criminal corruption.
On June 30, the Jakarta Corruption Court sentenced former education minister Nadiem Anwar Makarim to 10 years in prison, imposed a Rp 1 billion (US$55,700) fine and ordered him to pay Rp 809 billion in restitution. Nadiem was given one month to pay the restitution, failing which he will serve an additional five years in prison.
The bench found Nadiem guilty of abusing his authority in the procurement of more than 1 million Chromebook laptops between 2020 and 2022, when Indonesia and the world were hit hard by COVID-19 pandemic that forced schools to avoid in-class learning. According to the ruling, the then-education ministry altered procurement specifications in a way that effectively favored Chromebooks, resulting in Rp 1.57 trillion in state losses.
The court also concluded that the program failed to achieve its intended purpose because many schools, particularly those in areas with poor internet connectivity, were unable to use the devices effectively.
The verdict marked the culmination of a legal process that began on Sept. 4, 2025, when the Attorney General's Office (AGO) named Nadiem a graft suspect. Prosecutors maintained that internal technical assessments had found Windows-based laptops to be more suitable for Indonesian schools, yet those recommendations were allegedly set aside in favor of ChromeOS. They had initially sought 18 years' imprisonment, a Rp 1 billion fine and Rp 5.6 trillion in restitution.
Yet, the sentence itself is arguably not the most significant outcome of the case. More striking is how public opinion evolved throughout the proceedings. Unlike most high-profile corruption trials, where public frustration is typically directed at judges for handing down lenient sentences, the Nadiem case generated an altogether different response. Even before the verdict, much of the public debate had shifted from how severely he should be punished to whether the prosecution had convincingly demonstrated that a controversial policy decision amounted to criminal corruption.
