Corruption Case of Operational Allowance Honor, a Total of 153 Makassar Satpol PP Personnel Examined by the South Sulawesi Prosecutor's Office

MAKASSAR - Investigators from the High Prosecutor's Office of South Sulawesi Province have examined 153 personnel of the Civil Service Police Unit (Satpol PP) in the alleged corruption case of misuse of honorarium for Satpol PP operational allowances in Makassar City for the 2017-2020 fiscal year.

"Investigators are trying to immediately determine the suspect in the investigation of this case", said Head of the Information and Legal Section of the South Sulawesi Prosecutor's Office Soetarmi in Makassar as reported by ANTARA, Friday, September 16.

Of the hundreds of witnesses who have been examined by investigators, said Soetarmi, one of the former Heads of the Makassar Satpol PP, Iman Hud who is now the Head of the Makassar Transportation Service, was also questioned at the South Sulawesi Prosecutor's Office.

In addition, four treasurers of the Satpol PP in the sub-districts, namely Makassar District, Tamalate District, Biringkanaya District, and Mamajang District have been examined for completeness of case files.

Previously, investigators had examined the former Head of the Makassar Satpol PP, Iqbal Asnan, at the Makassar Class IA Penitentiary to complete the information in the alleged corruption case file.

Iqbal is now being detained to undergo a judicial process in the case of the alleged premeditated murder of the victim Najamuddin Sewang, a Makassar City Transportation Service personnel who was shot on Danau Tanjung Street on April 3, 2022.

The modus operandi in this case was revealed during the preparation and arrangement of the Makassar Satpol PP personnel in 14 sub-districts.

From the initial investigation, the Prosecutor's Office investigators found that members of the Makassar Satpol PP were registered with BKO but had never served or were fictitious, but still received the disbursement of the honorarium.

The alleged corruption in the congregation was allegedly carried out by officials who were not authorized to disburse the budget.

Furthermore, it is accepted that the person is not entitled to it so it is categorized as an alleged criminal act of corruption, abuse of authority, and the state budget.