During The Trial, KPK Investigator Rossa Purbo Said There Was No Involvement In Hasto At The Investigation Opportunities

The follow-up trial of the defendant Hasto Kristiyanto/PHOTO: Rizky Adytia-VOI

JAKARTA - Investigators from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Rossa Purbo Bekti stated that the Secretary General of PDIP, Hasto Kristiyanto, was not involved in the obstruction of the investigation, especially during the incident that occurred at the Police Science College (PTIK).

This statement was conveyed by Rossa when he was a fact witness at the trial of the alleged obstruction of the investigation that made Hasto Kristiyanto a defendant.

Initially, Hasto Kristiyanto's legal adviser, Patra M Zen, questioned the incident at PTIK which was considered an obstruction to the investigation. Where investigators were prevented by several people who were former investigators and gathered in one room.

"My question is, do you see this Mr. Hasto obstructing the PTIK? Do you see, Hasto ordered people to obstruct at PTIK, see?" asked Patra during a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Friday, May 9.

"Someone is blocking us," Rossa replied.

"Who?" said Patra.

"At that time was a former investigator," said Rossa.

Then, Patra emphasized Rossa's answer by questioning the party who intervened, not Hasto Kristiyanto, but a former investigator.

At that time, Rossa stated that Hasto was involved in an indirect obstruction to the investigation into the Harun Masiku case.

"Good, what is blocking is the former investigator. Mr. Hasto, isn't it?" asked Patra.

"Indirectly," said Rossa.

"Ah, that's your opinion, you, listen, watch, just listen. Do you see whether Hasto is blocking it?" asked Patra asserted.

"We repeat again, that the team pursued Mr. Hasto and Harun Masiku, who then found instructions for his position to enter PTIK," replied Rossa.

"I won't stop asking you. The question is, you said the witness was presented from the morning, the witness who proved that Mr. Hasto was obstructing the investigation. Earlier you said that what was blocking you at that time was an officer of the former and a KPK investigator. That's what you saw, right?" Patra asked.

"That's right," said Rossa.

Until finally, the KPK investigator stated that he did not see firsthand Hasto's involvement in the obstruction of the investigation that took place at PTIK.

Chairman of the Panel of Judges Rios Rahmanto then took over by emphasizing the question referred to by the legal adviser regarding Hasto Kristiyanto's involvement. At that time, Rossa again stated that there was no order from the Secretary General of PDIP to obstruct KPK investigators.

"So let's not be complicated, the meaning of legal counsel when the witness felt obstructed by the officer earlier, was there a role for Mr. Hasto who ordered the witness who was blocking him at that time? Was it a direct order that the witness saw, was there?" asked Judge Rios.

"There is no direct order," said Rossa.

In the alleged bribery case, Hasto was jointly charged with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah; the former convict of the Harun Masiku case, Saeful Bahri; and Harun Masiku gave money amounting to 57,350 Singapore dollars or equivalent to Rp600 million to Wahyu in the 2019-2020 period.

The money is allegedly given with the aim that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve an interim replacement request (PAW) for the Elected Legislative Candidate for the Electoral Region (Dapil) of South Sumatra (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR Members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

In addition, Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) arrested members of the General Election Commission (KPU) for the 2017-2022 period Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto is threatened with a crime as regulated in Article 21 and Article 5 Paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 Paragraph (1) and Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1 jo. Article 64 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.