Moeldoko's Camp Says Democrat Witness AHY Doesn't Understand The Object Of The Lawsuit: His Opinion Is According To The Order

JAKARTA - The spokesman for the Deli Serdang KLB Democratic Party, Muhammad Rahmad, assessed that the two expert witnesses of constitutional law presented by the Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono (AHY) camp in the lawsuit hearing at the Jakarta Administrative Court did not understand the object of the lawsuit.

The two are Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Margarito Kamis. According to Rahmad, both Zainal and Margarito were of the opinion that in the trial according to the order of the AHY camp, it was not based on their knowledge of constitutional law.

"When I observed the proceedings of the trial, it was very clear that Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Margarito Thursday did not understand the issue that was the object of the lawsuit. It seems that those concerned only expressed opinions according to orders, not according to their academic knowledge," Rahmad told reporters, Friday, October 22.

For example, he continued, regarding the rejection by the Menkumham which was being sued by KLB Deli Serdang to the Administrative Court. Zainal said the matter should be resolved internally by the party.

"Zainal doesn't seem to have read and understood the Administrative Court Law and what legal objects are the PTUN's authority," explained Rahmad.

Rahmad said that the object of the Deli Serdang KLB lawsuit was the Menkumham decision. Therefore, according to the provisions of the Administrative Court Law, he said, the matter was handled by the Administrative Court, not by internal parties.

"This is one proof that Zainal only follows his employer's orders, not following the flow of his academic knowledge," said Rahmad.

While Zainal's accusation that the opposition party has always been divided or weakened by the ruling government, according to Rahmad, there is also no scientific evidence. According to him, if what Zainal said was true, then the application for approval of the Deli Serdang KLB Management would not be rejected by the Menkum HAM.

"Once again, what Zainal is saying is far from academic values. Zainal is like a politician rather than a legal expert," he said.

Previously, Moeldoko Rusdiansyah's attorney, also criticized experts from the Democratic Party (PD) in the trial at the Jakarta Administrative Court, namely Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Margarito Khamis. He assessed that Zainal Arifin and Margarito did not understand the object of the lawsuit.

"The two expert witnesses presented by the AHY camp at the Administrative Court lawsuit No. 150 did not seem to understand the object of our client's lawsuit against the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and did not read or did not understand the contents of the 2020 Democratic Party's Articles of Association," said Rusdiansyah in his written statement, Friday, October 22. .

"The information they provide is not related to the substance of the lawsuit. They appear like politicians, not like an academy," he added.

As is known, the Democratic Party of Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono (AHY) presented two expert witnesses on constitutional law in a lawsuit hearing at the Jakarta Administrative Court, Thursday, October 21. The two are Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Margarito Kamis.

Zainal revealed, history records that in Indonesia the party that suddenly experienced a split was the opposition to the current government.

"It is always the opposition parties that are damaged. Whether by chance or not, but usually the opposition. That is very dangerous for democracy, so I have to remind you," said Zainal Arifin Mochtar in the lobby of the Jakarta Administrative Court, Thursday, October 21.

According to him, democratic mechanisms should not be forced to be resolved in court. "Democratic mechanisms should be resolved by democratic mechanisms. Don't force the democratic mechanism to be resolved in court because of danger. Why? Because we will shift from a democratic country to what people call a juristocracy, a country where everything is decided by the courts," explained Zainal.

Zainal explained that the democratic mechanism is an internal party settlement in accordance with the provisions of the law.

"It's enough to solve it internally, don't force it out. The danger is that if we continue like this, it can damage the democratic state as well as destroy democracy itself. There must be an opposition," explained the man who is familiarly called Ucheng.