SETARA: Ex-Jampidsus Legal Maneuvers Must Not Obscure the Substance of the Case

JAKARTA - The Chairman of the National Board of SETARA Institute, Hendardi, assessed that the legal steps of the former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), Febrie Adriansyah, through the pre-trial should not divert public attention from the substance of the case he is facing.

According to Hendardi, pre-trial is the right of every suspect in the rule of law. However, he assessed that the procedural aspect should not be the only focus in guiding the legal process, while the substance of the alleged criminal act was ignored.

"Pre-trial is the right of every suspect in a legal state. However, making procedural issues as the main argument, while the substance of the alleged criminal act is set aside, is a strategy that does not answer the real public questions," said Hendardi in his statement, Monday, August 10.

Hendardi assessed that if the legal team wanted to fight for the principle of due process of law, all stages of handling the case should be tested objectively from the beginning, including regarding the process of transferring the investigation from the police to the Attorney General's Office.

According to him, the transfer needs attention because the case is then handled by an institution that was previously the place where Febrie Adriansyah occupied a strategic position.

"Such conditions should be questioned because they concern independence and potential conflicts of interest in the law enforcement process," he said.

Hendardi said that it was important to open the issue transparently so that the public could assess whether the handling of the case had been carried out independently and free from special treatment against certain parties.

He assessed that discussion of investigation procedures such as searches and seizures is indeed part of a legitimate legal mechanism to be tested. However, according to him, the test should not rule out more fundamental questions regarding the independence and accountability of the entire legal process.

"Enforcement of due process should not be understood in a partial way. If you really want to defend the principle of law, then the entire series of processes must be objectively tested from the beginning, including the decision to transfer the investigation, not just questioning technical actions," said Hendardi.

Furthermore, Hendardi assessed that the case involving the former high-ranking prosecutor was not only related to individual legal issues, but also became a test for the credibility of the Indonesian criminal justice system.

According to him, the public needs an independent, transparent, accountable, and free from conflict of interest legal process. All alleged criminal acts must be tested based on the evidence and applicable legal mechanisms.

"The public needs an independent, transparent, conflict-free legal process, and is oriented towards revealing material truth," he said.

Hendardi reminded that a legal process that is not transparent has the potential to increase public distrust in law enforcement institutions. Therefore, he asked all parties to respect the legal process while ensuring that the case is carried out without special treatment.

He also reminded the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal mechanism so that the resolution of the problem does not shift outside the legal corridor.

"We all hope that the rule of law is upheld so that justice can be realized and public confidence in law enforcement can be maintained," he said.

Hendardi emphasized that resolving cases through a transparent and fair legal mechanism is an important way to prevent the development of public distrust and self-judgment.

"Don't let the people find their own way to uphold justice, either through civil disobedience or, more dangerous, through mob justice or street justice," he concluded.