Nikita Mirzani's Attorney Calls Evidence Of Conversations From Public Prosecutors Not Relevant To The Indictment

Nikita Mirzani (Virgi/VOI)

JAKARTA - The atmosphere of the courtroom in the case of alleged threats and money laundering (TPPU) with the defendant Nikita Mirzani is heating up again.

There was a heated debate between the Public Prosecutor (JPU), the defendant Nikita Mirzani, and his team of legal advisers. The debate was triggered by the prosecutor's attempt to present evidence of a conversation that Nikita considered irrelevant to the indictment.

Tensions began when the Public Prosecutor was about to reveal evidence of digital conversations. The Panel of Judges also invited the Public Prosecutor to show the evidence if it was stated in the Minutes of Investigation (BAP) and the indictment.

"Please open it if it is in the BAP or the indictment," said the Panel of Judges.

The prosecutor then explained that the evidence was part of a series of related events.

"There is a series, Your Honor, from October 27 at the time of Doctor Oky Pratama ...," said the public prosecutor during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday, September 11.

This statement was immediately interrupted by Nikita Mirzani who objected because the Public Prosecutor linked matters that he said were not related. Because according to Nikita Mirzani, the problem with Reza Gladys began in November, not October.

"It means that everything that is not in question is related. The cellphone number from... October is not there," said Nikita.

Seeing the interruption, the Panel of Judges firmly asked Nikita to calm down and follow the applicable procedures.

"The defendant, I ask for silence, yes. Please check by the defendant, yes. If it is not in the BAP and the indictment, please file an objection. As long as it is, please show it," said the judge.

The prosecutor confirmed his argument by stating that the evidence refers to the testimony of witnesses who have been examined previously.

"It is in the testimony of the previous witness, Your Honor," said the prosecutor, detailing the time of the conversation in question.

"The year 2024 is October 27 at around 18 o'clock... Chats, yes, Oky Pratama with Reza Gladys on October 27 at 18 p.m."

Nikita Mirzani's legal advisory team immediately objected. Nikita also spoke up, showing the difference in the date between the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and what was stated in the indictment she was holding.

According to him, the indictment mentions the involvement of other parties on that date, not him.

"Here, October 9, it's Doctor Samira, not me. Here the indictment is clear. October 9th, Samira contacted. This is according to the indictment. Not me, I am in November," explained Nikita Mirzani.

To mediate the debate, the Panel of Judges asked the Public Prosecutor to show evidence of the relevance of the conversation with the indictment before the assembly.

"Please show it in front of the assembly, is it in the BAP or in the indictment? Please show it. So that it doesn't become a debate, please," said the Judge.

Legal adviser Nikita Mirzani emphasized that the conversation the prosecutor was about to show had nothing to do with his client.

"It was a conversation related to the issue between Reza Gladys and Samira. It was Oky who asked for advice, not the defendant. Well, it must be ...," said the legal adviser.

However, the prosecutor is of the opinion that the interpretation of the relevance of evidence is not the authority of the defendant.

"It is not from the defendant who can conclude, Your Majesty," said the prosecutor.

Finally, the Panel of Judges took the middle ground by returning to the court rules. The judge decided that as long as the evidence was recorded in the BAP and the indictment, the Public Prosecutor had the right to present it at trial.

The assessment of whether or not there is evidence related to the case will be concluded at the next stage.

"So come back again, yes. As long as it's in the BAP, it's in the indictment, please submit it," said Hakim.

"The problem has something to do with it or not, yes, it will be concluded later that the demands are the same in the defense. As long as it is in the BAP, please ask. Please continue, public prosecutor."

The trial of Nikita Mirzani's case began with a report by cosmetic entrepreneur Reza Gladys, who claimed to have been extorted up to billions of rupiah so that her product would not receive negative reviews. Apart from Nikita, her assistant is also a defendant in the same case.