Jusuf Hamka Many Answer I Don't Know, Hotman Paris: CMNP's Lawsuit Is Wrong

JAKARTA - The attorney for PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk Hotman Paris Hutapea assessed that the lawsuit by PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP), in the civil case number 142/Pdt.G/2025/PN Jkt.Pst, was the party's wrong lawsuit.

This was revealed by Hotman after the follow-up trial at the Central Jakarta District Court, on Wednesday, October 15.

The trial was also presented as a witness, namely Jusuf Hamka, who at that time served as Commissioner of CMNP.

However, Hotman was disappointed, because many questions were asked, but Jusuf did not know.

"So, it was very surprising, my friend Jusuf Hamka as a family controlling CMNP, he is also a witness. As far as I know he knows a lot, but it turned out that he could barely answer all my questions," Hotman told reporters.

One of the very vital questions in the trial to Jusuf Hamka, Hotman conveyed the contents of CMNP's lawsuit which accused Unibank's NCD deposit was fake or as if there was no funds. However, this contradicts the memory of the Judicial Review (PK) proposed by CMNP itself at the Supreme Court.

"Where it was stated that CMNP claimed to have paid the savings, approximately 17 million dollars. It was acknowledged by CMNP in his PK memory at the Supreme Court, even though if you look at the lawsuit or everywhere, it seems as if there is no funds, as if it is fraudulent, as if it is fake," he said.

"I asked again, he even showed, I showed proof of transfer, which is approximately 17 million dollars from Drosophila Enterprise PTE LTD who bought the securities, he also can't answer. I asked, this is what made your attorney, and this is at the Supreme Court, you can't answer either," he continued.

According to Hotman, the very fatal event was the financial report or balance sheet of CMNP in 1999, where the commissioner was Jusuf Hamka, containing the sale and purchase transaction, but he answered that he did not know even though the financial report was signed by Jusuf Hamka and there was a photo of him too.

Hotman explained that the financial report signed by the board of directors and commissioner representatives was also evidence.

"In the financial report, it is clear that the buyer of CMNP's securities is the Drosophila Enterprise of PTE LTD, which is a foreign company. Not Hary Tanoe, not PT Bhakti Investama," he said.

He again repeated the question to Jusuf Hamka about CMNP's lawsuit through the plaintiff's attorney which was submitted based on a letter on May 12, 1999.

In the letter, according to Hotman, it is clear that the buyer is Drosophila Enterprise PTE LTD.

"There it is clearly stated that the buyer is Drosophila Enterprise PTE LTD again, I ask, Unibak has a letter used as the basis for the lawsuit. It means that CMNP admits this letter," he said.

On this basis, Hotman was confused about why PT Bhakti Investama was being sued.

"He said the buyer was Drosophila Enterprise PTE LTD, not Hary Tanoe, not also Bhakti Investama, but Jusuf Hamka said he didn't know anymore, didn't know the answer. So how?" he said.

During the trial Hotman also asked Jusuf Hamka if he knew that the lawyer assigned at the 1999 NCD transaction was also Lucas, the lawyer who is now CMNP's attorney was also answered not to know.

According to him, this is enough to clarify the case of the evidence submitted, it turns out that CMNP acknowledged it. In fact, it was also submitted as evidence by CMNP