Lawyer Emphasizes that the Procedure for Determining the Suspect is Not Fulfilled by the KPK, This is the Explanation

Continuation of the pre-trial hearing of former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas

JAKARTA - The legal team of former Minister of Religion Yaqut Cholil Qoumas believes that the process of determining the suspects carried out by the KPK against his client is not in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. The Yaqut party considers the determination of the suspects against his client by the KPK to be invalid.

This view was explained in detail by Yaqut's legal team during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court (PN), Wednesday, March 4, with the agenda of reading the reply.

"That based on the description as stated above, the procedure for determining the suspect according to the provisions of Article 90 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not met by the Respondent, and therefore the determination of the suspect against the Applicant by the Respondent must be declared invalid and not legally binding," said the chairman of the lawyer team, Yaqut, Mellisa Anggraeni.

In his explanation, Mellisa said that the issuance of a notice of appointment of a suspect could be carried out if the completeness had been met. Where, he said, one of the completeness is the issuance of a letter of appointment of a suspect.

"That regarding the basic rules of the investigator's authority to determine a person as a suspect, especially the completeness of the notification of the suspect above, has been clearly regulated, firm and cannot be interpreted otherwise, that a determination of a suspect must be contained in a written legal product, which means it must be in the form of: a letter of determination of the suspect," said Mellisa.

"Juridically, the letter of determination of a suspect is proof that a person has been determined to have the status of a suspect. And, the letter of determination of a suspect is the one that has binding force and/or causes legal consequences (rechtsgevolg) in the form of: changing the legal status of a person to a suspect," he added.

Mellisa emphasized that Article 90 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, which is regulated, is that the letter of determination of the suspect must have been received by the parties concerned no later than 1 day after it was issued. However, according to him, what is regulated in the Article is not carried out by the KPK in determining the status of the suspect against Yaqut.

"That from the Letter of Notification of Determination of Suspects submitted by the Respondent on Friday, January 9, 2026, the Determination of the Suspect against the Applicant has been carried out on January 8, 2026. However, until the date of this Pre-trial Application, the Applicant has not received the Letter of Determination of the Suspect as required by the provisions of Article 90 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code," he explained.

"That the model or way of notifying the letter of determination of a suspect who is only 'announced by number' in the Letter of Notification of Determination of a Suspect as done by the Respondent, clearly violates the basic rules (vide Article 90 paragraph (2) of the new Criminal Procedure Code)," he continued.

Mellisa said in the letter of notification of the determination of suspects against Yaqut, the signature stated was owned by the head of the KPK. In fact, according to him, the letter should have been signed by the investigator handling the case in question.

"The absence of at least 2 (two) valid and relevant evidence explaining the matter and its direct connection with the Applicant as the basis for determining the suspect.

Mellisa also said that the KPK did not explain in concrete terms the alleged criminal acts committed by Yaqut in the letter of notification of the determination of suspects.

"There is no brief description of the case that describes the criminal event and the involvement of the Applicant in a concrete manner, as required in Article 90 of the NEW Criminal Procedure Code, so that it does not provide clarity on the reasons and basis for the designation of the Applicant as a suspect," he explained.

"The uncertainty of the applicant's assumption, in addition to violating the principle of the rule of law, also violates the principle of criminal law due process of law," he concluded.