Witness Propam Calls The Defendant AKP Irfan Widyanto Only Carry Out Sah Orders Regarding CCTV DVR Security

Illustrations of Brigadier J's murder with the defendants Sambo and Putri today presented 13 witnesses. (Compas TV screenshot)

Deputy Head of Detachment C Paminal Bureau of the National Police Propam Division, AKBP Radite Hernawa, said that the defendant AKP Irfan Widyanto only carried out a legitimate order to secure CCTV DVR at the Police Complex, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta. He expressed this testimony when he was a witness in the follow-up trial of the obstruction of justice case with the defendant AKP Irfan Widyanto. Initially, Radite said that he had been asked for information regarding the alleged obstruction to the investigation into the death of Nopriansya Yosua Hutabarat alias Brigadier J by the investigator of the special team (timsus) of the National Police. He said he was not aware of any warrants (sprin). Meanwhile, the sprin was issued on July 8 which was shown to several Propam Polri officials, Bareskrim Polri and Polres South Jakarta. "What is certain is that I was never shown during the examination by investigators," said Radite during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday, December 1. So, in the examination at that time, Radite assessed that AKP Irfan Widyanto's actions were illegal or violated the rules. However, at this time he only found out if it existed or was published. "If it relates to the investigation article, there must be a sprin that is shown, that's why I am responsible for doing something without sprin," said Radite. With this sprin, Radite assessed that AKP Irfan's actions and other defendants securing CCTV should be legal. Because they were all ruled by Ferdy Sambo. In addition, the CCTV security action is not included in the confiscation category. However, it is limited to being secured in the context of an investigation which is then submitted to the South Jakarta Police investigators. "Not confiscation. So everything (must be) based on sprin," said Radite. Responding to this testimony, AKP legal adviser Irfan Widyanto, M. Fattah Riphat asked questions about whether the CCTV DVR security was legal or not by his client. Radite also answered that the action was legal. He emphasized the reason, because there was a warrant and assignment from Ferdy Sambo. "Is the order given by Kombes Agus Nurpatra as the East Kalimantan in the order and the verbal order to secure the DVR for security at the South Jakarta Police for investigation purposes?" asked Riphat. "Sah," replied Radite. For information, he is one of seven defendants of obstruction of justice. In that case, he was jointly charged with securing evidence in the form of CCTV from the Police Complex security post, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta. Thus, AKP Irfan Widyanto is strongly suspected of violating Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 subsidiary Article 48 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law Number 19 of 2016 and/or the second indictment of Article 233 of the Criminal Code subsidiary Article 221 paragraph (1) to 2 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to (1) of the Criminal Code.