Firli Bahuri Reported Again To The KPK Supervisory Board, This Time Regarding The OTT Of The UNJ Chancellor

KPK Chairman Firli Bahuri (DOK. PR KPK)

JAKARTA - Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) reported the Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Firli Bahuri and Deputy for Enforcement of the KPK Karyoto to the Supervisory Board.

This report was made after Acting Director of Public Complaints Aprizal was declared to have violated the code of ethics by the KPK Supervisory Board some time ago related to hand arrest (OTT) operations at the State University of Jakarta (UNJ) and the Ministry of Education and Culture (Kemendikbud).

"Based on the excerpt from the APZ (Acting Director of Public Complaints of the KPK Aprizal), it is suspected that there were several serious violations committed by both of them," said Kurnia in his written statement, Monday, October 26.

Kurnia explained four alleged violations of the code of ethics committed by Firli and Karyoto.

First, this allegation arose because Firli was adamant about taking over the handling that was carried out by the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Education and Culture even though at that time the Acting Director of Public Complaints of the KPK had explained that after his team provided assistance, there was no element of state administration. So, based on Article 11 Paragraph (1) letter a of the KPK Law, the anti-graft agency has no right to follow up on it.

The second allegation, Kurnia said that Firli had made his own conclusion that there was an element of crime in the assistance provided. In fact, it is suspected that the former KPK Deputy for Enforcement did not know the true incident.

"So it would be odd if Firli simply concludes that there is a criminal act of corruption and can be handled by the KPK," he said.

Third, the actions of Firli and Karyoto, who then issued an investigation warrant and case transfer to the police, allegedly did not first use the internal case title mechanism of the anti-graft agency. In fact, based on existing internal regulations, to issue a warrant for investigation and delegation must be preceded by a case title followed by officials at the deputy for prosecution together with other KPK leaders.

The fourth suspicion, Kurnia said that Firli's action, namely taking over the handling of the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Education and Culture was on his own initiative without involving other parties or hearing input from other leaders. If this is true, then Firli's action is contrary to Article 21 of the KPK Law which states that the KPK leadership must be collective collegial.

So based on the explanation of the allegations, ICW suspects that Firli and Karyoto's actions have violated Article 4 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 5 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 5 paragraph (2) letter a, Article 6 paragraph (1) letter e, Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 7 paragraph (1) letter c Regulation of the Supervisory Board Number 2 of 2020 concerning Enforcement of the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct of the Corruption Eradication Commission.

For this report, Kurnia then urged the KPK Supervisory Board to carry out hearings of alleged violations of the code of ethics against Firli and Karyoto. Furthermore, Tumpak Hatorangan, cs was also urged to summon both of them and the relevant witnesses to this report.

It is known that the KPK Supervisory Board recently decided that Aprizal had violated the code of ethics related to the UNJ OTT and the Ministry of Education and Culture. He was proven to have violated Article 5 Paragraph 2 letter A of the KPK Supervisory Board Regulation Number 2 of 2020 concerning Enforcement of the KPK Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. After being found guilty, Aprizal was then sentenced to light sanctions in the form of an oral warning which was valid for one month.

Previously, Firli had also been reported to the KPK Supervisory Board for using a luxury helicopter while traveling to his hometown some time ago. Even though he was found guilty, he was only given a sentence in the form of an oral warning.