Prabowo Subianto Takes A Big Risk By Giving Abolition And Amnesty

Hasto Kristiyanto, left the East Jakarta Rutan KPK Rutan Branch, Jakarta, Friday (1/8/2025). (ANTARA/Indrianto Eko Suwarso/rwa)

JAKARTA President Prabowo Subianto's decision to grant legal forgiveness to the Secretary General of the PDI-P (PDIP) Hasto Kristiyanto and former Trade Minister Thomas Trikasih Lembong or Tom Lembong, shows a tendency to use political power to resolve legal issues.

Pada Kamis (31/7/2025) malam Wakil Ketua DPR Sufmi Dasco Ahmad mengeluarkan pengumuman yang mengejutkan banyak pihak. Presiden Prabowo Subianto secara tiba-tiba memberikan abolisi untuk Tom Lembong dan amnesti untuk 1.116 orang, termasuk Hasto Kristiyanto.

Yes, indeed, abolition and amnesty are the prerogatives of the president, but the public sees this as more than just a legal issue. Allegations of the use of political power to resolve legal issues have also emerged to the public.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) assesses that the awarding of abolition and amenis for two corruption convicts whose law enforcement process has not been inckrachtpatut is seen as an intervention in the enforcement of dangerous anti-corruption laws.

The public is also wondering what underlies President Prabowo in giving pardons to Tom Lembong and Hasto?

Last week, Hasto Kristiyanto was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison in a bribery case related to Harun Masiku's corruption case. Meanwhile, Tom Lembong was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison in a case of importing raw crystal sugar on July 18.

The verdict against the two is in the public spotlight, because of the strong assumption of legal politicization. This claim arose considering that Hasto and Tom Lembong were part of President Prabowo's rivals during the 2024 presidential election.

But now both of them have come out of bars after the DPR granted the abolition and amnesty request from the president. The government called the amnesty and abolition approved by the DPR "to maintain conduciveness and knit a sense of brotherhood for the benefit of the nation and state".

From political eyes, Hendri Satrio assessed that granting abolition and amnesty to Tom Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto was Prabowo's effort to reduce political polarization that was still felt after the 2024 election. President Prabowo wanted to emphasize that he was a leader for all camps, not just certain groups.

According to the man who is familiarly called Hensa, the gesture also shows that Prabowo wants to open a dialogue with the opposition, especially the PDIP, which has a strong base in parliament and society.

"This could be a big political capital to calm the hot political situation, as well as open communication with PDIP and people around Tom Lembong," said Hensa in a written statement.

However, on the other hand, giving abolitions and amnesty poses a risk to Prabowo. Because this can lead to the perception that the president sacrifices the commitment to eradicate corruption for political interests.

"Although abolition and amnesty are the prerogatives of the president, anti-corruption and critical groups can view this as a step to weaken justice," said the founder of the Indonesian Public Opinion Discussion and Study Group Survey Institute (KedaiKOPI).

For this reason, according to Hensa, Prabowo needs to ensure clear public communication to avoid this negative perception. If the public sees this step as a sincere effort for unity, Prabowo will get stronger legitimacy. However, if the public considers this as just a political maneuver, trust in his government could be eroded.

Prabowo is playing at a high level. He uses political symbols to talk about unity, but if the public suspects this is just a trick, the political narrative can fall," he explained.

A number of anti-corruption activist institutions, ICW, Transparency International Indonesia (TII), and the IM57+ Institute also highlighted the granting of amnesty and abolition to corruption suspects.

They saw that this decision was not accompanied by technical provisions governing the standards for giving it.

Therefore, the consideration of granting abolition and amnesty is unclear and vulnerable to arbitrarily being carried out. To avoid this, these provisions need to be clarified by the provisions in the law.

"This authority should not be carried out haphazardly and take into account the bigger impact," wrote ICW in a statement received by VOI.

ICW continued, granting abolition and amnesty to defendants whose cases have not been inkracht was a form of political intervention in anti-corruption law enforcement and injuring the principles of checks and balances. The intervention of the executive institution towards judicial institutions interferes with the independence of the judiciary.

The intervention also had a negative impact on the disclosure of cases that had not been finalized at trial. In fact, evidence in the trial is needed to see whether or not the defendant's actions are proven," continued ICW.