Ignore the Facts of the Trial, the Observer Says Nadiem Makarim Case is a Bad Mirror of Law Enforcement

JAKARTA - Legal and political observer, Pieter C Zulkifli, said the Nadiem Makarim case was a bad mirror of law enforcement that ignored the facts of the trial and threatened the investment climate. In fact, according to him, in a healthy country the court is a place to seek justice.

"In a country that is losing its way, the courts often turn into an arena for character assassination, where policies are treated as crimes, and innovation is suspected of being a conspiracy. In this context, the public is now witnessing a case that ensnares former Minister of Education and Culture Nadiem Makarim," said Pieter Zulkifli in his statement, Jakarta, Monday, May 25, evening.

Pieter believes that the 18-year prison sentence, a fine of Rp. 1 billion, and compensation of up to trillions of rupiah in the Chromebook procurement case are not just ordinary legal cases. He assessed that this case has evolved into a new symbol of anxiety, namely whether this country still gives room for the courage to innovate, or is actually punishing every attempt at change.

"The question is becoming more relevant when the facts of the trial show many contradictions that disturb the public's common sense. A number of expert witnesses and technical officials in the trial actually explain that the minister does not have the authority to intervene in the e-catalog price or the technical procurement mechanism," he said.

Pieter Zulkifli reminded that in the midst of public scrutiny of the alleged corruption case in the procurement of Chromebooks that ensnared former Minister of Education and Culture Nadiem Makarim, there were serious concerns about the direction of law enforcement in Indonesia. The legal process, which is considered to ignore the facts of the trial, expert testimony, to the principle of proportionality, can become a bad precedent for democracy and the national investment climate.

In fact, said Pieter, the Director of SMP Kemendikbudristek and the Budget User Authority, Mulyatsyah, explicitly stated that the director general alone did not have the ability to intervene in prices. So, it is natural that the public questions the decision that all the blame is directed at a minister.

"This is what makes some people start to see the case not as a mere corruption case, but as a criminalization of policy. The Katadata Insight Center survey shows that the majority of young people view this case as closer to policy failure than pure corruption," he said.

"This view is important to be noted, because the younger generation is the group that understands the most the need for bureaucratic innovation and the digitization of public services," added Pieter Zulkilfi.

The former Chairman of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives also emphasized that if every policy that fails or causes controversy has the potential to be brutally prosecuted, then who else is the official who dares to take a breakthrough. "Who wants to think creatively to improve the country if the risk in the end is a demand for dozens of years in prison?" he said.

Pieter Zulkifli then quoted the political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli who once said 'Nothing is more difficult to carry out and more dangerous than introducing new procedures'. According to him, the sentence feels alive in the reality of Indonesia today.

"The digital reform of education, which was once welcomed, is now treated as a great sin of the country," he said.

In fact, he continued, the digitalization of education which was driven by Nadiem at that time not only targeted the learning aspect, but also the management of the budget so that it was more transparent. "Education expert Ina Liem even said that the reform was aimed at closing the leakages in the education bureaucracy which had been a latent problem for decades," said Pieter.

"Ironically, when transparency efforts actually lead to criminalization, the message that reaches the public becomes very dangerous, namely don't innovate too much if you don't want to be charged with a crime," he added.

In addition, Pieter Zulkifli stated that the law enforcement process, which was considered to ignore the facts of the trial, had the potential to damage international confidence in Indonesia. He emphasized that global investors not only read economic growth figures, but also the quality of legal certainty.

"They observe whether the law works objectively or whether it moves in accordance with political pressure and institutional interests," he said.

Pieter revealed that President Prabowo Subianto is now facing a serious test in this case. If the government seems to let the legal process that the public perceives as unfair, according to him, the effect is not only on the image of law enforcement, but on the legitimacy of the government itself.

He assessed that public concerns about President Prabowo later appearing as a 'hero of the night' after the damage occurred showed that distrust of the direction of national legal supremacy was beginning to grow.

"This is where the state should learn to distinguish between corruption and policy discretion. Not all failed policies are crimes. Not all administrative decisions are worth being prosecuted," he said.

Pieter Zulkifli said that if this limit is vague, then bureaucracy will be filled with fear. Officials will only be busy saving themselves, not serving the people.

He also assessed that if these concerns seem to be felt by many people. At least 21 anti-corruption figures and legal experts submitted amicus curiae documents or court friends who hope that Nadiem will be released in order to maintain the innovation space for policymakers in the future.

"This step is not merely a personal defense, but a moral alarm that the law must not lose its proportion.

"The philosopher Cicero once warned, 'The highest justice without wisdom can turn into the greatest injustice'. When law enforcement officers are too eager to show firmness without the ability to read the context, the law turns into a machine of fear," he said.

According to Pieter Zulkifli, the most dangerous of all of this is actually not the fate of one defendant. The biggest danger is the death of the courage of the children of the nation to build a new system for their own country.

"Because when innovation begins to be judged, then in fact the country is punishing its own future," he concluded.