Former Investigators Highlighted The Presence Of KPK Leader Johanis Tanak At The Joint Session Of The Litigants

JAKARTA - The leadership of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is reminded to be careful when coming to one event. Do not create potential interactions with litigants.

This was conveyed by Praswad Nugraha as a former KPK investigator in response to the presence of KPK Deputy Chair Johanis Tanak in a corruption prevention event which was also attended by a bank official.

This official was once summoned as a witness in a corruption case that is being handled by the anti-corruption commission.

"KPK is an institution built on the principles of public independence and accountability. Therefore, every action or presence of its officials must maintain a distance from the potential for interaction with parties who have legal interests," said Praswad when contacted by reporters quoted on Monday, October 13.

Praswad said that the KPK should be more vigilant about events attended by its officials so that incidents like this can be avoided. Because, the reason for providing preventive material cannot be justification.

"In this context, the KPK leadership should refuse or delay attendance if there are parties being investigated or related to the case being handled," said Praswad.

"If in certain situations and conditions accidentally meet, the KPK leadership is obliged to avoid communicating in any form with parties related to the case, and immediately leave the location on the first occasion," he continued, who now serves as Managing Chairman of Southeast Asia Anti-Corruption Syndicate (SEA-Actions).

Furthermore, Praswad assessed that the KPK Supervisory Board should intervene with this incident. Because, Johanis was actually able to attend the event online so there was no need to meet the litigants.

He considered this step could have a deterrent effect on other KPK leaders. "The KPK Supervisory Board must examine Johanis Tanak to deepen the potential for violations of the code of ethics," he said.

The claim that the presence is solely for prevention cannot be used as justification. Good prevention must remain based on integrity, independence, and professionalism," concluded Praswad.