Drama in Gowa DPRD! Regent Walk Out, Pansus Still Continue the Right to Inquiry

GOWA - Chairman of the Special Committee (Pansus) of the Gowa DPRD Hak Angket Muhammad Kasim Sila regretted the decision of the Regent of Gowa Sitti Husniah Talenrang who left the courtroom (walk out) when asked to provide clarification in the DPRD's right of inquiry session. According to him, this action made it possible for the regent to explain the various accusations that were the object of the pansus investigation not to be used.

Kasim said the inquiry rights forum was an official state forum formed by the DPRD to obtain direct information from regional heads regarding the three objects of inquiry rights that were being investigated.

"This forum is an official state forum that should be used by the regent to clarify that what has been alleged so far is not true. But it was not done and instead chose to leave without permission from the chairman of the session, even though this is an official state forum," said Kasim, quoted by Antara, Wednesday, July 15.

According to Kasim, the trial mechanism has been agreed upon from the beginning, namely each member of the panel asks questions in turn so that the answers provided can be more detailed and facilitate the deepening of each material of the right to inquiry.

Therefore, the request of the Regent of Gowa that all questions be submitted collectively cannot be met because it is not in accordance with the examination procedure that has been agreed upon by the committee.

He added that the trial was deliberately held in public as a form of commitment by the DPRD to the principle of transparency. With this mechanism, the public can witness the examination process in person and assess the objectivity of the inquiry rights process.

According to Kasim, the committee has given the opportunity to the Regent of Gowa to provide clarification. However, the decision to leave the courtroom made the examination process not able to run optimally.

However, he ensured that the Pansus Hak Angket would continue its duties according to the applicable mechanism. In the near future, the committee will hold a consolidation meeting to draw conclusions based on the testimony of witnesses, experts, and evidence that has been collected during the investigation process.

"We will consolidate to compile the results of the working group. All decisions will be made based on the facts obtained during the petition rights process," he said.

Kasim also emphasized that the Gowa DPRD did not plan to call the Regent of Gowa again. According to him, the opportunity to fulfill the call for the pan-committee has been given several times so that the right to appeal process will continue according to the stages that have been set.

On the other hand, the lawyer for Gowa Regent Sitti Husniah Talenrang stated that his client's decision to leave the courtroom was taken because the request for all questions from the members of the panel to be submitted collectively was not met.

Gowa Regent's lawyer, Amirullah Mappaero, said from the beginning his client had been ready to provide clarification on all materials that were the object of the right to inquiry. However, the inspection mechanism applied by the panel was considered not to accommodate his client's right to answer all questions at once.

"From the beginning, the Regent as the suspect was ready to provide clarification to the questions of the members of the panel. However, because his right to ask questions collectively was not fulfilled, so the action of leaving the courtroom was carried out," said Amirullah.

Amirullah emphasized that his client still respects the duties and functions of the Gowa DPRD, especially the Hak Angket Committee. However, according to him, the decision to leave the courtroom was made because the requested rights were not granted.

He explained that the legal basis used as a reference was Article 128 of Law Number 1 of 2024. According to him, this provision stipulates that DPRD members can ask questions orally or in writing, while the party asked for information has the right to provide an answer orally or in writing.

"The rules are a reference as to why our client asked the DPRD members to carry out the questions collectively. We were also present at the hearing and saw injustice," he said.

Amirullah assessed that there was a different treatment in the examination process. He gave an example of Sitti Husniah's ex-husband being examined in private, while his client's request to answer all questions collectively was not granted.

"We consider that there is injustice in the ongoing process in the inquiry rights subcommittee. Regarding policies that will certainly be answered by you, we have already prepared everything so that this is an injustice for us, the legal team," he said.