Prosecutor Calls Nadiem Makarim Suuzan to Law Enforcement

JAKARTA - The public prosecutor (JPU) from the Attorney General's Office responded to the defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim's objection or resistance by stating that the former Minister of Education and Culture was suspicious or had a bad premonition of law enforcement officials in investigating the case that ensnared him.

The head of the JPU team, Roy Riady, said in the trial that Nadiem's objection seemed to indicate that the investigation into the alleged corruption case of digitalization of education was based on assumptions, perceptions, or one-sided assessments.

"What the legal advisor and the defendant said actually made law enforcement in our country a law enforcement that lost its dignity because it was based on the nature of suuzan, prejudice, to law enforcement," he said in a follow-up hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Thursday, January 8.

He explained that the determination of the suspect against Nadiem had been tested in a pretrial hearing. The South Jakarta District Court panel of judges at that time stated that the determination of the suspect concerned was valid according to law.

However, Nadiem and his team of lawyers are said to have returned.

"It seems that law enforcement in the case does not provide justice for the defendant and it seems that law enforcement works based on assumptions, perceptions, or one-sided judgments, not based on evidence, so that it deprives the defendant of justice and dignity," he said.

"What is more worrying," added Roy, "if there is a difference in the assessment of a legal event between what is tested in court and what is desired by the lawyer, law enforcement is actually reported on the basis of working on the basis of assumptions or perceptions alone.

"In fact, the KUHAP Law provides space for defendants and legal advisers to file objections such as pre-trial, appeal, cassation, and even review," he said.

Apart from that, the JPU emphasized that justice in criminal law must also be seen from the perspective of the victim.

The party who according to the prosecutor is the victim of this alleged corruption is the school students, especially in the lagging, leading, and outermost (3T) areas, who cannot use Chromebook laptops in the learning process.

On this basis, the JPU considers Nadiem's objection to be "a very dangerous reason for objection that leads to the opinion that law enforcement works to create injustice against the defendant."

In addition, the prosecutor said that Nadiem's and his team's objections, which were submitted in the trial on Monday (5/1), contained the main material of the case whose truth needed to be tested in the trial. This is considered contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code.

"After examining and considering the objections of the defendant and his legal advisor... we, the public prosecutor, assess that it is a form of confusion or panic for the legal advisor and the defendant who can no longer distinguish between what is limited by the Criminal Procedure Code as a reason for filing objections to the indictment," said Roy.

Therefore, the JPU asked the panel of judges who examined the case to reject Nadiem's objection and his team of lawyers.

In addition, the JPU asked the lawyers defending Nadiem to remain focused on the norms that have been regulated in the legal provisions, especially the Criminal Procedure Code so that the enforcement of this case remains in good condition.

"And there is no need to try to seek sympathy with the carrying of opinions," he added.

Nadiem is accused of corruption in the education digitization program in the form of the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) at the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2019-2022, which caused a loss of state funds worth IDR 2.18 trillion.

He was also charged with receiving Rp809.59 billion in bribes from the corruption.

For his actions, Nadiem is threatened with a criminal penalty as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) or Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.