At The Trial, Saeful Bahri Called The Source Of PAW Bribes From Harun Masiku

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

JAKARTA - Former PDI-P cadre Saeful Bahri stated that the bribe for the management of the Inter-Time Substitution (PAW) came from Harun Masiku.

The statement was conveyed in response to a question from Ronny Talapessy, the attorney for the defendant Hasto Kristiyanto.

During the trial, Ronny read out the Investigation Report (BAP) of Saeful Bahri, which was the result of the court's decision in 2020. It is known, Saeful Bahri is also a defendant in the bribery case for the management of Inter-Time Replacements (PAW).

Ronny questioned the contents of the BAP which stated that Harun Masiku had twice handed over money worth Rp1,250,000,000 or Rp1,250 billion.

"So in the consideration of the witness, the first phase of operational funds were received by Harun Masiku, which the defendant gradually received, namely on December 16, 2019, amounting to Rp. 400 million. Is that right?" asked Ronny during a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Thursday, May 22.

"That's right," replied Saeful Bahri.

"This means that the source of the Rp400 million fund from Harun Masiku is correct?" asked Ronny confirmed.

"That's right," replied Saeful.

Then, Ronny read out the BAP again, Saeful Bahri, to be precise when answering the number 51 question which confirmed the origin of the money for managing PAW Harun Masiku.

"I'll quote it. I can explain that the funds of 1 billion and 250 million all came from Harun Masiku," said Ronny.

"Okay," replied Saeful Bahri, agreeing to the BAP.

In the BAP, it is explained about the use of money such as for operational needs in the PAW process from Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

"What was related to Rp1,250 billion was also in the verdict of the witness on page 117 (year) 2020, the witness said that the money given entirely from Harun Masiku, huh?" asked Ronny again to confirm.

"Amount of Rp1,250 billion," said Saeful Bahri

Not only that, Ronny also mentioned the BAP Saeful Bahri who stated that he pretended to call Hasto Kristiyanto with the aim that it seemed as if there was a direct order so that Agustiani Tio Fridelina was willing to help with the management of PAW Harun Masiku.

"Yes, it was there at that time, when I took Donny to the house of aspirations, I met Pak Hasto," said Saeful.

Hearing this statement, Ronny asked whether there was talk about funds or money in a meeting with Hasto Kristiyanto at Aspirasi's house. Saeful then emphasized that there was no such thing.

"Was the meeting discussing the funds?" asked Ronny.

"No," replied Saeful Bahri.

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.