The KPK Supervisory Board Ensures The Process Of Reporting The Alleged Violation Of The Firli Bahuri Code Of Conduct

Gedung DPR (Irfan Meidianto/VOI)

JAKARTA - The Supervisory Board of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) will process reports of alleged violations of the code of ethics against KPK Chairman Firli Bahuri and Deputy for Enforcement Karyoto in connection with the Jakarta State University (UNJ) arrest operation when he received the complaint. Currently, they have not received the report.

"I have not received (the report file, red). (Investigation, red) follows the procedure according to the existing SOP," said KPK Supervisory Board member Albertina Ho when confirmed by reporters, Tuesday, October 27.

Previously, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) reported this alleged ethical violation to the KPK. Based on the receipt form letters and documents submitted by ICW researcher Kurnia Ramadhana, the files were received by the KPK on Monday, October 26 yesterday at around 11.40 WIB.

Kurnia explained that the reporting to KPK Chairman Firli Bahuri and KPK Deputy for Enforcement Karyoto was carried out because they were suspected of violating the code of ethics in the UNJ OTT process some time ago.

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 KPK Aprizal), it is suspected that there were several serious violations committed by both of them," said Kurnia in his statement.

He said, there were 4 allegations of ethical code violations committed by Firli and Karyoto. First, this allegation arose because Firli was adamant about taking over the handling of cases currently being handled by the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Education and Culture. In fact, the Acting Director of Public Complaints at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has explained that after his team provided assistance, it turned out that there were no elements of state administration in the case. 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.

Second, Kurnia said, Firli had made his own conclusion that elements of criminal acts were found in the assistance provided. In fact, it is suspected that the former KPK Deputy for Enforcement did not know the true incident. So, he continued, it became odd when Firli simply concluded that there was a criminal act of corruption and could be handled by the KPK.

Third, said Kurnia, the actions of Firli and Karyoto in issuing investigation orders and transferring cases to the police, allegedly did not first use the case title mechanism within the KPK. In fact, based on internal rules, to issue a warrant for investigation and delegation, a case title must be preceded by a senior official in the deputy for prosecution together with other KPK leaders.

Fourth, Kurnia said, the action that Firli took, 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.