Criminal Expert: Don't Make Sense There Is A Challenge If It's An Inkrah Case

JAKARTA - Criminal law expert from Wahid Hasyim University (Unwahas) Semarang, Mahrus Ali, said that it does not make sense for an obstruction to a case that has permanent legal force or Inkrah.

He conveyed this opinion when presented as an expert in the trial of the alleged bribery case for the replacement of the DPR for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation to the accused PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto.

Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney, Ronny Talapessy, in the trial questioned the opinion of experts regarding the obstruction at the investigation stage by giving an example of several cases, one of which was Frederich Yunadi.

"Then the decision of the Supreme Court number 3315 Pidsus 2018 Frederich Yinadi, the convict was proven to obstruct the investigation of the corruption suspect Setyo Navanto, this means that in the process of the investigation level," said Ronny during a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Friday, June 20.

Responding to this, Mahrus said that Article 21 of the Corruption Crime Law regulates obstruction efforts at the level of investigation. So, it does not make sense to occur at the investigation stage.

"So that's what I said that if someone is subject to Article 21 (Typikor Law), while the main case is running, even until there is an incraht decision that does not make sense," said Mahrus.

According to him, if there is a obstruction to the handling of the case, then the legal process will not run until it is decided by the panel of judges.

It is known, Article 21 of the Corruption Crime Law explains that every person who deliberately prevents, obstructs, or thwarts directly or indirectly investigations, prosecutions, and examinations at court hearings against suspects and defendants or witnesses in corruption cases.

"What does that mean? It means that no investigations are prevented, no investigations have been thwarted," he said.

In addition, Mahrus also said that the law had clearly and firmly described the limits. So that the application of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law cannot be interpreted if there is an obstruction at the investigation stage.

"Then in the law it is clearly explained, for example, this investigation cannot be interpreted other than investigations, not then investigations," he said.

"To prevent his actions from being investigated, why? To prevent an investigation from happening, it's not like that," said Marus.

Moreover, the investigation process has not yet entered the Pro Justicia stage. Where, law enforcement officers are still looking for an alleged criminal offense.

"Why? Because there is no pro-Justicia in the investigation, the evidence is not there yet," said Mahrus.

In this case, Hasto together with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah, former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri, and Harun Masiku were charged with giving bribes of Rp 600 million to Wahyu Setiawan (KPU commissioner) in the 2019-2020 period.

This bribe is so that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve the application of PAW for the South Sumatra Election Candidate (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

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 KPK OTT incident against 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 was charged with 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 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.