ICW Receives KPK Death Letter: Firli Bahuri-Karyoto Did Not Violate The UNJ OTT Code Of Ethics

KPK / VOI Building

JAKARTA - Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) received a letter from the KPK Supervisory Board. In content, the KPK Dewas assessed that KPK Chairman Firli Bahuri and KPK Deputy for Enforcement Karyoto did not violate the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct in handling the Jakarta State University (UNJ) OTT case.

"On November 9, 2020, the Supervisory Board sent a letter to Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) which in essence stated that Firli Bahuri and Karyoto were not proven to have violated the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct in handling the UNJ OTT case. In this letter the Supervisory Board based its conclusions on four thing, "said ICW researcher Kurnia Ramadhana quoted from Antara, Saturday, November 14.

ICW on 26 October 2020 reported Firli Bahuri and Karyto having violated the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct in connection with the UNJ OTT case.

"The reason for the first Dewas KPK was the handling of a case of arrest in the hands of alleged corruption at the Ministry of Education and Culture which was carried out by the KPK on the orders of the KPK chairman as a result of the incomplete report from the Acting Director of Public Complaints who said he had helped OTT at the Ministry of Education and Culture," said Kurnia. .

The second reason for the KPK Dewas is that the issuance of an investigation warrant has been coordinated between deputies and has been in accordance with the procedures in force at the KPK.

The third reason, the decision by the KPK chairman to handle cases of arrest in the hands of alleged corruption at the Ministry of Education and Culture carried out by the KPK has been coordinated with other KPK leaders through online communication media so that the decision is not Firli Bahuri's personal initiative.

"The last reason, the cases handled in the KPK investigation, have not found sufficient preliminary evidence and the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 19 of 2019 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission have not been found, so in accordance with applicable provisions, the KPK is obliged to submit investigations to other law enforcers. The delegation mechanism in certain circumstances is possible not through a case title based on the policy of the KPK leadership, "said Kurnia.

In the letter, the KPK Dewas also admitted that there were weaknesses in the handling of cases of arrest in the hands of alleged corruption at the Ministry of Education and Culture.

In response to this, ICW has several notes, namely that the adult's argument has deviated from the substance of the decision previously handed down to the Acting Director of Public Complaints Aprizal who revealed the conversation between Aprizal and Firli Bahuri.

In the conversation, according to Kurnia, it was seen that there was coercion from Firli Bahuri to handle the case which from the start was carried out by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Education and Culture. In fact, at that time Aprizal had said that the case did not involve state officials, but Firli ignored this information.

The second response was that it was not uncommon for KPK leaders to make decisions, especially in KPK prosecution deputies, only through online conversations without the existence of a case title forum which brought together the leadership with the deputy for prosecution, accompanied by a public complaint team.

The third response was that the KPK Dewas denied the procedure for transferring cases to other law enforcers because the Dewas did not specify what situation made the exception of the case delegation procedure and the Dewas did not explain the matter "based on the KPK leadership policy".

"The KPK leadership referred to by the Supervisory Board refers to five people or only a few people? If only one or a few people agree on it, it cannot be justified. Because Article 21 paragraph (4) of the KPK Law states that the KPK leadership is collective and collegial, "he said.

The fourth ICW response was that Dewas was often unprofessional in upholding the KPK Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. For example, when the KPK leadership forcibly repatriated investigator Kompol Rossa Purbo Bekti, information was confusing to search the PDIP DPP office, until a decision that should have been in the heavy category but was only given a warning against Firli Bahuri.

"This proves that the actual existence of the Supervisory Board has failed to contribute to strengthening the KPK institution," said Kurnia.