Prosecutors Are Not Ready, Judge Administrators Of The Session Of Defendant Irfan Widyanto

Session at South Jakarta District Court (Photo: Rizky AP/VOI)

The panel of judges decided to postpone the trial of the defendant Irfan Widyanto in the case of alleged obstruction to investigation or obstruction of justice, the death of Yosua alias Brigadier J. This is because the public prosecutor (JPU) has not yet completed the former charges. "The trial was postponed on Friday, January 27," said Chief Judge Afrizal Hadi during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Tuesday, January 24. The decision to postpone the trial began when the prosecutor expressed his unpreparedness to read out the demands. The reason is that the juridical analysis has not been completed. "That today's agenda was from us to read the demands. But the juridical analysis that we are still compiling is that it is not finished yet," said one team of prosecutors. Responding to this, Hakin, Chairman Afrizal, immediately sprayed the prosecutor's team. They were asked to immediately prepare their demands so that there would be no more delays. Including the reading of the other defendants' demands, namely, Baiquni Wibowo and Chuck Putranto. Originally, the trial of the two defendants was also scheduled for Friday, January 27. "I remind the prosecutor's team, the defendants Baiquni and Chuck, there will be no more delays because yesterday there was an exception, we will no longer give opportunities," said Judge Afrizal. Until finally, it was decided that the trial for reading the charges for the defendant Irfan Widyanto was postponed. In this case, Irfan Widyanto, who is the winner of Adhi Makayasa, was charged with taking and replacing CCTV DVR from around Ferdy Sambo's official residence, precisely at the security post of the Police complex, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta. Then, the CCTV DVR was handed over to the defendant Chuck Putranto. The footage was copied by the defendant Biquni Wibowo. Irfan Widyanto was charged with 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.