Yaqut's lawyer uncovers the state's losses in the Hajj quota case

JAKARTA - The legal team of former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas questioned the basis for calculating state losses in the alleged corruption case of the Hajj quota.

Lawyers assessed that the three components used in the construction of state losses did not necessarily indicate a loss due to Yaqut's policy of dividing the additional 2024 Hajj quota 50:50 for regular and special pilgrims.

Yaqut's lawyer, Mellisa Anggraini, said that there were at least three components associated with state losses. First, the alleged receipt of money by certain parties which he said had never been found to flow to Yaqut.

Second, the profit from the sale of the quota of Hajj officers by the Special Hajj Service (PIHK) to the pilgrims. Third, all the profits of PIHK which sent pilgrims who were considered not entitled to participate in the hajj were also included in the calculation of state losses.

"The second component, related to the quota of officers sold by PIHK to pilgrims. This is even further. First, related to the regulation of special haji officers, it is really the domain of the Directorate General," said Mellisa in a press conference in Cipete, South Jakarta, Monday, August 10.

According to him, the problem lies in the technical realm of the organization of the hajj. In fact, said Mellisa, a number of components in the indictment such as changes to the Siskohat system are also technical issues that are not directly the responsibility of the minister.

Mellisa then questioned the relevance of PIHK's profits and the practice of buying and selling quotas with Yaqut's decision to determine the additional 50:50 quota distribution. Moreover, according to him, the government is having difficulty absorbing the available regular Hajj quota.

"It is proven that in 2026, there is no additional quota and he is not able to absorb it. Because what? Time constraints," he said.

He emphasized that the decision to distribute additional quotas in 2024 could not be separated from the actual conditions of the implementation of the hajj at that time. The policy, said Mellisa, must consider time constraints, new Saudi Arabian government policies, accommodation capacity, to the safety of the congregation.

Meanwhile, another lawyer for Yaqut, Dodi Abdul Kadir, highlighted the definition of state losses which he said must be proven concretely. He said that state financial losses require the existence of assets or state rights that are reduced as a result of illegal acts and have a direct causal relationship.

"So there are assets that are reduced, there are acts against the law, and it must be correlated," said Dodi.

Dodi then associated the principle with the distribution of the hajj quota. According to him, if the regular quota portion is increased, the burden on the state's finances can increase because regular Hajj pilgrims receive subsidies.

"For regular Hajj, one Hajj pilgrim, the state must subsidize Rp. 36 million. So the state from the state budget must issue subsidies through BPKH," he said.

On the other hand, Dodi said that the implementation of special hajj did not use state funds because all costs were borne by the pilgrims through the special hajj organizer.

Therefore, he questioned whether the profits of PIHK from the departure of pilgrims were then included as part of the state's losses. According to him, if it is found that there is abuse of quotas, the parties involved in the practice should be specifically traced.

"It must be published which PIHK is sending pilgrims incorrectly," said Dodi.

Dodi assessed that the issue needed to be distinguished from Yaqut's policy in determining the distribution of additional quotas. Because, according to him, the practice of abuse of departure of pilgrims is an operational issue that has its own mechanisms and parties.

In the end, Dodi asked that the evidence at the trial be directed at one fundamental question: whether Yaqut's policies are really correlated with the reduction of state assets or rights.

"It must be proven in court whether there is any action by Mr. Yaqut that is correlated to the reduction of state assets or state rights," he said.

He also asked the public to monitor the trial so that the panel of judges would not merely accept the construction in the prosecutor's indictment. According to him, the court must objectively test whether all the elements charged were actually proven.

"The court not only accepts the indictment from the prosecutor, but this court actually objectively examines whether the indictment is proven or not proven," said Dodi.