Conclusion of Lawyers in Pre-Trial: Determination of Suspect Yaqut Does Not Meet 2 Evidence Tools

JAKARTA - The legal team for former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas concluded that the determination of suspects made by the KPK to his client did not meet 2 pieces of evidence. According to Yaqut's lawyer team, one of the evidence that was not met was the calculation of state losses.

Yaqut's legal team concluded this based on the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016.

In the ruling, it was stated that Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law (Tipikor) must be understood as a material offense. Where the proof of the element of state financial loss as in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 must be based on the results of a special audit known as a pro-justitia investigative audit.

"This is also emphasized by the State Administrative Law Expert presented by the Respondent, namely Prof. DR Immanuel Sudjatmoko, S.H., M.S., who stated that the element of state financial loss as the basis for determining the suspect must be real (actual loss) and the amount must be certain at the time of the determination. , not just potential, and the calculation of the actual loss must have been owned by the law enforcement authorities before determining the status of a person as a suspect," said Yaqut's legal team, quoted from the conclusion that the file was submitted to the pretrial judge at the South Jakarta District Court, Monday, March 9.

Yaqut's lawyer team explained that the conclusion of the establishment of a suspect against his client did not meet the 2 pieces of evidence taken based on the testimony of experts from the Financial Audit Agency (BPK) presented by the KPK in the trial, namely Najmatuzzahra.

Based on Najmatuzzahra's statement, the results of the calculation of state losses in the Hajj quota case that ensnared Yaqut were only given to the KPK on February 23, 2026. Meanwhile, the determination of a suspect against Yaqut was carried out on January 8, 2026.

"In this case, the State Financial Loss Calculation Expert presented by the Respondent, DR. Najmatuzzahra also confirmed the final Investigative Report which was only published on February 20, 2026, was only submitted to the Respondent on February 23, 2026, and was only officially handed over on February 24, 2026," said lawyer Yaqut.

According to Yaqut's party, the inadequacy of evidence in designating his client as a suspect can also be seen from the KPK's attempt to make the Minister of Religion's Decree Number 2024 of 2024 as an element of 'against the law' or 'abusing authority'.

Yaqut's lawyer team explained that the KMA was made as a follow-up to the agreement between the Indonesian government and Saudi Arabia in order to regulate additional Hajj quotas. Moreover, the KMA is still valid, still being carried out, has never been revoked, never canceled, and has never been declared invalid by the authorized officials or institutions.

"That the situation was actually confirmed by the Expert presented by the Respondent, Prof. DR. Erdianto Effendi, S.H., M.HUM., who explained the policy related to treaties between other countries applies the territorial principle, and if there is a cross-jurisdictional legal act under the law of two countries, then the legal act is subject to the law of the two countries or one of the laws of the countries concerned," said the Yaqut lawyer team.

In addition, in its conclusion, the Yaqut legal team also explained that the Hajj quota could not be considered as state finances. Where, this is in accordance with the statements of state financial experts presented in the trial.

"That is reinforced by the State Financial Expert, DR. Dian Puji Simatupang, who explained that the Hajj quota is not a state financial instrument, not a capitalizable item, and not something that gives rise to state financial rights," said Yaqut's legal team.

"Experts confirm that the change or loss of the hajj quota (which is the absolute authority of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) does not result in financial losses for the state, because the essence of the quota is not a monetary instrument that can be capitalized," he added.