Prosecutors Will Respond To Ferdy Sambo And Putri Candrawati's Exceptions At The Trial Of Brigadier J's Case Today

Ferdy Sambo will undergo a trial at the South Jakarta District Court in the case of Brigadier J's death on Monday, October 17, 2022. (Rizky A-VOI)

JAKSEL - The trial of premeditated murder and obstruction of justice in the death of Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabat or Brigadier J with the defendant Ferdy Sambo Cs resumed today, Thursday, October 20.

Public Relations of the South Jakarta District Court, Djuyamto, said that this trial will schedule the response of the public prosecutor (JPU) to the memorandum of objection or exception of the defendant Ferdy Sambo and his wife, Putri Candrawathi.

"Today's trial agenda is the response of the public prosecutor to the exception from the defendant's legal counsel," said Djuyamto when confirmed, Thursday, October 20.

The hearing is scheduled to take place at 09.30 WIB. The implementation was carried out in the main courtroom of Prof. H. Oemar Seno Adji, South Jakarta District Court.

In addition to the follow-up trial for the defendant Ferdy Sambo, the South Jakarta District Court also scheduled a hearing for the exception reading of the defendants' legal counsel Ricky Rizal Wibowo and Strong Ma'ruf today at 09.30 WIB.

The trial was carried out in parallel considering that the panel of judges who presided over the trial of Ferdy Sambo and Putri Candrawati was the same as the trial of Ricky Rizal and Strong Ma'ruf.

"The trial is of course sequential because the assembly is the same," said Djuyamto.

As is known, Ferdy Sambo's inaugural trial was held on Monday, October 17 with the agenda of reading the indictment by the public prosecutor. After the indictment was read out, the defendant through his legal advisor submitted a memorandum of objection to the prosecutor's indictment.

Ferdy Sambo's attorney, Sarmauli Simangunsong, said that the Public Prosecutor's Office prepared indictment No. Reg. Case: PDM-242/JKTSL/10/2022 dated October 5, 2022, did not carefully and deviated from the results of the investigation.

Sarmauli said that the indictment did not describe the events in Magelang, and there were several descriptions that he judged to only rely on the testimony of one witness and without considering the statements of other witnesses.

In addition, he also said that the public prosecutor was not careful in describing what was behind the commotion between Brigadier J and Strong Ma'ruf on July 7, 2022. He also said that the indictment prepared by the public prosecutor was only based on assumptions and made his own conclusions.

Therefore, Sambo and Putri's legal team requested the panel of judges to accept all objection notes from the defendant's legal counsel.

Sambo and Putri's legal team also asked the panel of judges to order the Public Prosecutor to stop examining case Number 797/Pid.B/PN JKT. SEL and release the accused from custody.

Then, restore the good name, dignity, and dignity of the defendant with all the legal consequences, as well as charge court fees to the state.

"Or at least the panel of judges who examined and tried this case handed down a fair decision," he said.

Separately, based on the Antara report, the Head of the Attorney General's Office for Legal Information, Ketut Sumedana, said that the objection and rejection of the public prosecutor's indictment was the right of the defendant.

However, he emphasized that the indictment that was prepared was complete, thorough, and clear as regulated in Article 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code, so there was no room for the defendant to object because all indictments were sourced from the legal facts of the case files which were compiled into indictments.

He revealed that the objections read by the defendants' legal counsel had not touched the substance of the exception itself as regulated in Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Namely, related to judicial competence, the formal requirements of the indictment and the material requirements of the indictment that concentrate on the indictment can be canceled and null and void by law.

Ketut added that the defendant's legal counsel's exception was only a repetition and a rebuttal which was repeatedly rebuked by the panel of judges because it had entered the subject matter of the case, namely submitting a defense before the main case was examined.

"So it must be rejected and the trial must continue with an examination of the main case," said Ketut, Tuesday, October 18.