Questioning the Presence of the TNI in the Nadiem Makarim Courtroom
JAKARTA - The presence of the Indonesian National Army (TNI) at the trial for alleged corruption in the procurement of Chromebooks involving Nadiem Makarim has come under scrutiny.
There is something interesting in the trial of alleged corruption in the procurement of Chromebooks in the Education Digitalization Program at the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2019-2022 at the Jakarta Corruption Crime Court with the defendant Nadiem Makarim, Monday (5/1/2025).
In the trial, three people in TNI uniforms were present, which drew the attention of Presiding Judge Purwanto S Abdullah. He also asked the origin of the TNI soldier because it was considered to interfere with the views of visitors and journalists who were on the back side of the courtroom.
"This is a TNI colleague from where, yes? Maybe you can take a position, don't stand there, sir. Because it interferes with the camera. Can you adjust, sir, yes? Can you step back? Later when it's closed, you can only go forward because it's also disturbed by those behind," said Judge Purwanto.
It didn't stop there. After the trial, these soldiers then escorted Nadiem Makarim out of the courtroom with the prosecutors who were on duty to escort Nadiem.
The scene clearly attracted public attention. The public questioned the presence of the TNI in the trial of the alleged corruption in the procurement of Chromebooks involving Nadiem. Amnesty International Indonesia Executive Director Usman Hamid emphasized that the TNI is not a unit of the prosecutor's office, let alone in the public court room.
"The TNI is a state tool in the defense sector, not a security unit in the courtroom. The TNI is not a prosecutor's security guard," said Usman Hamid.
Create an Intimidating Atmosphere"Security involving members of the TNI, said the Director of Prosecution of the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Agung Riono Budisantoso, has been carried out by the prosecutor's office for some time.
Similarly, the Head of the TNI Information Service, Brigadier General Donny Pramono, said the presence of three TNI members in the courtroom was not related to the case being tried. They, according to Donny, were present for limited and situational security at the request of the special criminal division at the prosecutor's office, which was considered risky.
Donny explained that their assignment was based on a memorandum of understanding between the prosecutor's office and the TNI in line with Presidential Regulation Number 66 of 2025. In the regulation, it is stated that the TNI can be involved in the security aspect of prosecutors when carrying out their duties. Thus, according to Donny, the focus of security for TNI soldiers is on prosecutors and the smooth running of the legal process, not interfering with the course of the trial.
However, Usman Hamid emphasized that the court is a judicial jurisdiction, which is free from intervention, including from military elements.
The presence of combat-uniformed personnel, said Usman, actually created an intimidating atmosphere.
"A trial free from pressure is a prerequisite for a fair trial. The presence of military personnel in combat uniforms puts psychological pressure on judges, witnesses, defendants, and legal advisers," said Usman.
Furthermore, Usman also alluded to the reluctance of the Prosecutor's Office to use Polri security. According to him, this actually reflects the political nuances in handling the case as well as showing the latent conflict between the Prosecutor's Office and the National Police.
This incident is also contrary to President Prabowo Subianto's commitment to not revive militarism. He also urged the TNI to only guard trials in military courts, in accordance with its constitutional function.
"The reality in the Corruption Court and the widespread role of the military in the bureaucracy actually normalizes the practice of militarism in the civilian government," said Usman.
Outside the TNI's DutiesMeanwhile, the Executive Director of the Independent Judicial Studies and Advocacy Institute (LeIP) Muhammad Tanziel Aziezi said the presence of three members of the TNI in the Nadiem trial actually reminded the public of the main purpose of the abolition of the dual function of the ABRI during the reform period.
At the beginning of the reform, Indonesia agreed to make the TNI for the defense and security of the country, while the National Police was tasked with enforcing the law and maintaining public security and order. The function of the TNI itself is regulated in Article 7 of Law Number 3 of 2025 juncto Law No. 34/2004 concerning the TNI.
That is why the presence of soldiers in the courtroom should be questioned. Moreover, the profile of the defendant or the case being tried according to him does not have the potential to endanger the defense and security of the country so that the TNI needs to be involved.
"Security of the defendant in the trial does not include the defense and security of the state and the duties of the TNI in the TNI Law. The defendant and his case do not endanger the defense and security of the state. So, TNI members should not be involved in the trial of civilians for any role because it is not the function of defense and security of the state regardless of the prosecutor having any agreement, cooperation, or alliance with the military," explained Tanziel, quoting Kompas.
Imparsial Director, Ardi Manto Adiputra, urged the Supreme Court (MA) or the court chairman to evaluate the security system for trials referring to PerMA Number 5 of 2020. Imparsial also encouraged the public prosecutor who brought the TNI soldiers in the Nadiem trial room to receive a reprimand.
"We also remind, especially law enforcement institutions, not to drag the TNI back into civil government affairs and internal security that are not in accordance with legal provisions, because it can harm the enjoyment of the basic rights of citizens, interfere with the independence of law enforcement, and also damage the professionalism of the TNI," said Ardi.