Hasto Objects To Language Expert Information, Alludes To Netrality To Investigator Illustration

PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto expressed several objections to the statement of the Language Expert from the University of Indonesia (UI), Frans Asisi Datang, presented by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Prosecutor in the trial of the alleged bribery case of interim replacement (PAW) members of the DPR and the obstruction to the investigation of the Harun Masiku case.

"I have several objections, Your Honor," said Hasto during a trial at the Corruption Court, Thursday, June 12.

The first objection, Hasto assessed the testimony of the confusion expert because he used the illustrations as a background and basis for context analysis. Because, it has an impact that there is a conclusion about 'Father' referring to him.

It is known, the term father appeared in communication via telephone between PDIP security guard Nurhasan and Harun Masiku.

"Secondly, objecting to the witness' testimony that 'father' as a third party in the communication between Nurhasan and Harun Masiku was Hasto Kristiyanto, because it was influenced by the opinion of expert witnesses who were influenced by illustrations from investigators," he said.

The panel of judges then asked for a response from the linguist from the University of Indonesia (UI). Frans stated that he would stick to the information that had been previously conveyed.

"Yes, I stick to my statement earlier. Because what was given to me or as my field, it was in the field of language. So I'm not a witness who saw the facts of the trial, no," said Frans.

Hasto then continued his objections by alluding to the attitude of expert neutrality.

According to him, as an expert, Frans should be neutral and look at the context by examining other statements to support the context, which was conveyed by related parties, including in public trials.

Hearing Hasto's objection, Frans again stated that his opinion was still in accordance with the linguistic analysis carried out based on the documents provided by investigators.

"Yes, it is still in my opinion," said Frans.

Hasto also expressed objections regarding the interpretation of the abbreviation of 'SS' which is associated with his place of residence. In fact, the real place is a halfway house.

"Furthermore, the objection that SS said described my residence and a halfway house, even though it was an aspiration. Everyone can live there," he said.

With this objection, Frans said his statement was based on information obtained from investigators

"I followed the information conveyed by the investigators," said Frans.

It is known, at this trial, Frans Asisi came to analyze the language of communication on a number of pieces of evidence. Some of them are about the context of 'Father' and 'Ok Sip'.

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 seeks the KPU to approve an interim replacement request (PAW) for the Elected Legislative Candidate for the Electoral Region (Dapil) of South Sumatra (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR Members 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.

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.