Saeful Bahri Calls Hasto's Order When Asking To Resign From Elected Candidates, Witness: Fairy Tale

JAKARTA - Former member of the Indonesian House of Representatives from the PDIP faction, Riezky Aprilia, considers Saeful Bahri's statement that continues to mention Hasto Kristiyanto's name as a fairy tale that is not clear.

Saeful Bahri is known to have met Riezky Aprilia at a hotel in Singapore. At that time, Saeful Bahri asked her to resign as a elected Legislative Candidate (Caleg) on the orders of Hasto Kristiyanto.

"The question is, you said that you had been thrown out earlier, 'What am I, a fairy tale or what, Saeful's fairy tale I don't care anymore' what was it?" asked Hasto Kristiyanto's legal adviser, Patra M. Zen during a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Wednesday, May 7.

"Yes, it's a fairy tale," replied Riezky Aprilia.

"So what you said was that you were carrying out the order of the Secretary General, carrying out Mr. Hasto Kristiyanto's orders, was it only from Saeful's mouth, right?" Patra emphasized.

"Yes, Saeful's mouth," said Riezky Aprilia.

Hearing this testimony, Patra then questioned whether there was a Decree (SK) or an assignment letter addressed by Saeful Bahri when delivering a request for Riezky Aprilia to resign.

Witness Riezky Aprilia also said she did not know about this. However, in the meeting Saeful did not prove his statement about the order by confirming it directly to Hasto Krstiyanto.

"No, you never said that, have you never been confirmed?" asked Patra.

"No," said Riezky Aprilia.

"No, that's what you said the fairy tale of the sameful is already tired, isn't it?" asked Patra to make sure.

"Yes," said Riezky Aprilia.

Then, Patra stated that later Saeful Bahri would be presented as a witness. Thus, it was revealed that the statement that dragged Hasto Kristiyanto's name as a fact or just a fairy tale

"Later we will check Saeful here, which fairy tale will fact later," said Patra.

Another Hasto attorney, Febri Diansyah, also studied Riezky Aprilia's statement which concluded that Hasto Kristiyanto was the giver of orders from a request submitted by Saeful Bahri.

Then, Riezky Aprilia reiterated that all the conclusions were based on the submission of Saeful Bahri and Donny Tri Istiqomah.

"Once again, you have come to a conclusion from what you heard from Saeful and Donny earlier?" asked Febri.

"Yes," replied Riezky Aprilia.

Then, Febri read out Investigation Report (BAP) number 12 containing information from Riezky Aprilia who knew that the Secretary General of PDIP, Hasto Krtistiyanto ordered Saeful bahri and Donny Tri Istiqomah.

"I want to ask, did you ever know apart from Saeful and Sonny that they were both ordered by the Secretary General of the PDI-P?" asked Febri.

"Based on the information of the two of them," said Riezky Aprilia.

In the alleged bribery case, Hasto was jointly charged with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah; the former convict of the Harun Masiku case, Saeful Bahri; and Harun Masiku gave money amounting to 57,350 Singapore dollars or equivalent to Rp600 million to Wahyu in the 2019-2020 period.

The money is allegedly given with the aim that Wahyu strives for the KPU to approve the request for an interim replacement (PAW) for the Elected Legislative Candidate for the Electoral Region (Dapil) of South Sumatra (Sumsel) I on behalf of the Members of the DPR for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

In addition, Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) arrested members of the General Election Commission (KPU) for the 2017-2022 period Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Thus, Hasto is threatened with a crime as regulated in Article 21 and Article 5 Paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 Paragraph (1) and Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1 jo. Article 64 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.