Attorney General Demands Inactive Judge Sudrajad Dimyati 13 Years In Prison

The trial of the inactive Supreme Court Judge Sudrajad Dimyati at the Bandung Corruption Court, Bandung City, West Java, Wednesday (10/5/2023). (ANTARA/Bagus Ahmad Rizaldi)

BANDUNG - The public prosecutor (JPU) from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has demanded that the inactive Supreme Court Judge Sudrajad Dimyati be sentenced to 13 years in prison due to the alleged bribery case in the Supreme Court (MA).

Public Prosecutor Wawan Yunarwanto, during a trial at the Bandung District Court (PN), West Java, said Sudrajad was believed to be guilty of having received a bribe of 80 thousand Singapore dollars based on the evidence and facts that existed during the trial.

"Demanding for 13 years in prison and a fine of Rp. 1 billion, a subsidiary of six months in prison with the obligation to pay compensation of 80 thousand Singapore dollars as received, if you cannot return it, you will be sentenced to four years in prison," Wawan said as quoted by ANTARA, Wednesday, May 10.

He explained that Sudrajad Dimyati's demands were in accordance with the first alternative indictment, namely Article 12 letter c of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption Jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the 1st Criminal Code.

Wawan explained that the aggravating thing for Sudrajad's sentence, including Sudrajad, was considered not to support the Government in eradicating corruption, especially since Sudrajad was the supreme judge.

"Then, damage the image of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, because the public does not believe the credibility of the Supreme Court, it also damages the image of the judge's profession," he explained.

However, he continued, there were also mitigating factors, namely that Sudrajad was polite during the trial. In addition, Sudrajad is also considered to have responsibilities and has never been convicted.

Meanwhile, Sudrajad's lawyer, Firman Wijaya, assessed that there were several facts about the trial that had not been proven, including Sudrajad's discussions with other parties involved. In addition, said Firman, there is also a question of a goodie bag regarding bribery whose whereabouts are not yet clear.

"If you choose the number 13 (year in prison) it's a matter of taste, but don't demand it about taste and something, because proof needs real facts," said Firman.