PT DKI Jakarta Judge Approves Nadiem's Request to Examine Additional Witnesses

JAKARTA - The panel of judges at the DKI Jakarta High Court has approved the request of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology for the period 2019-2024 Nadiem Anwar Makarim to examine four witnesses and one additional expert related to the Chromebook case.

Presiding Judge Subachran Hardi Mulyana stated the approval after his party studied various reasons for the appeal from Nadiem as the defendant, his legal advisor, and the public prosecutor.

"Because this is a request from the defendant's lawyer, the one who is obliged to present the witnesses is still the defendant's legal advisor," said the presiding judge at the PT DKI Jakarta court, Wednesday, August 5, as reported by ANTARA.

The presiding judge explained that a total of four witnesses and one expert who will be asked for their statements are representatives of several witnesses and experts submitted by the Nadiem camp.

The four witnesses are the Director and Corporate Secretary of PT GoTo Koesomohadiani, former GoTo Commissioner Andre Soelistyo, former Chairman of the E-Catalog Election Pokja at the Government Goods/Services Procurement Policy Agency (LKPP) Dwi Satrianto, Product and Solution Director of PT Acer Indonesia Riko Gunawan, and forensic accounting expert Mohamad Mahsun.

The presiding judge set the examination to be carried out first against Koesomohadiani and Andre on Wednesday (12/8).

During the trial, Nadiem's lawyer, Ari Yusuf Amir, said that based on Article 290 of the National Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), a defendant in his appeal memo can request that witnesses and experts who have been heard at the first instance court to be re-examined by the high court.

In addition, the defendant can also submit a request for witnesses or experts, who at the first instance were not present, accompanied by the reason that the witness and expert need to be heard again.

"The reason why the defendant appeals the applicant is to ask that the witnesses and experts be summoned is because of the consideration of the judge in the quo decision contrary to what has been explained directly by the witnesses and experts under oath in the trial," said Ari.

Thus, according to him, there is a discrepancy between the legal facts revealed in the trial and the legal considerations taken by the judex facti or fact examiner.

He revealed the discrepancies, including regarding the beneficial owner, power of attorney, and approval of corporate transactions of around IDR 809 billion; details of the transaction of IDR 809 billion; and the mechanism of the Absolute Liability Statement (SPTJM) and the limit of the defendant's liability.

In the case of alleged corruption in the education digitization program in the form of the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) in the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2019-2022, Nadiem was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being proven to have committed corruption.

In addition to imprisonment, Nadiem was also sentenced to a fine of Rp1 billion, subsider 190 days in prison and a substitute money of Rp809.59 billion, subsider 5 years in prison.

The substitute money was imposed on Nadiem after it was proven that he had received Rp809.59 billion in money from PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa (PT AKAB) through PT Gojek Indonesia. Most of PT AKAB's money came from Google's investment of US$786.99 million.

In that case, Nadiem was proven to have abused his authority, causing a loss of state finances worth IDR 1.56 trillion.

The corruption, among others, was carried out by carrying out the procurement of learning facilities based on information and communication technology in the form of Chromebook laptops and CDM in the 2020, 2021, and 2022 budget years, which were not in accordance with the procurement planning and procurement principles.

The actions of the founder of one of the technology companies were stated to have been carried out, among others, together with three other defendants who had been sentenced in different trials, namely Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, Mulyatsyah and Sri Wahyuningsih as well as Jurist Tan, who is currently still at large.

Thus, Nadiem was proven to have violated the crime stipulated in Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.