No Orders For Hasto To Give Bribes, Attorney: Key Witnesses Have Disbursed

JAKARTA - The attorney for the Secretary-General of the PDIP, Hasto Kristiyanto, Febri Diansyah, stated that his client had never ordered to bribe the General Elections Commission (KPU) commissioner, Wahyu Setiawan, in the management of the Interim Change (PAW) for DPR member Harun Masiku.

He conveyed this after the trial of reading the replica by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) in the alleged bribery case for handling changes between the DPR's 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation.

It started when Febri alluded to the prosecutor's argument regarding the submission of a judicial review to the Supreme Court (MA) as the initial part of the bribery scenario. According to him, the accusation was a logic mistake.

"The submission of a judicial review is legal, guaranteed by the constitution, and regulated in law. We consider this a form of public prosecutor's inability to prove the existence of a bribery order from Pak Hasto, then directed as if judicial review was the beginning of bribery," Febri told reporters, Monday, July 14.

Judicial review submitted by PDIP, said Febri, is not aimed at testing laws, but testing KPU regulations against laws. Because, there is a legal vacuum

Even then, regarding the judicial review, it was emphasized that it did not violate the rules because it was completely legal and constitutional.

Then, the key witnesses who have been presented by the public prosecutor (JPU) are said to be increasingly making trouble about Hasto's absence from the bribery scenario as charged.

"Witnesses Saiful Bahri and Doni Tri Istiqomah clearly said that they made the bribery scenario themselves. There was never any direction, order, or report to Pak Hasto," he said.

Febri also highlighted the inconsistency of the prosecutor in responding to the two previous decisions that had been signed. If the case involving his client is a new case, the prosecutor should have started the right investigation process from the start.

However, in fact, the investigation used by the KPK still refers to old cases since December 2019.

In addition, the prosecutor previously conveyed 16 points that were considered to strengthen Hasto's alleged involvement. However, all of them are considered to only focus on communication between other parties that is not directly related to PDIP's constitutional actions through Hasto Kristiyanto.

Febri also said that his party would provide a complete answer to all allegations by the prosecutor on the duplicate trial agenda which is scheduled for Friday, July 18, 2025.

"We will explain firmly and based on legal evidence in the duplicate later. What is certain is that it is important for us to clearly separate which actions are legal and which are not legal," said Febri.

As a reminder, Hasto was charged by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) with 7 years in prison. In addition, the prosecutor also charged Hasto Kristiyanto with a fine of Rp. 600 million. If it is not paid, it will be replaced with a prison sentence of 6 months.

In this case, Hasto was charged 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.