Unud Chancellor Pretrial Rejected, Bali Prosecutor's Office: Evidence Of Work Investigators According To The Criminal Procedure Code

Head Of The Legal Information Section Of The Bali High Prosecutor's Office Putu Agus Eka Sabana Putra/ANTARA/Rolandus Nampu

The Bali High Prosecutor's Office (Kejati) stated that the pretrial hearing decision rejecting the lawsuit of the Udayana University Chancellor, Prof. Dr. I Nyoman Gde Antara (NGA) emphasized the fact that investigators determined the suspect in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

"The pretrial results reaffirm that the Bali Prosecutor's Office investigator team carried out their duties in accordance with the SOP (standard operating procedure) as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, there were no orders from anywhere or the terms were subjective. We continue to carry out the procedures as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code," said Head of the Bali Prosecutor's Office Legal Information Section Putu Agus Eka Sabana Putra in Denpasar, Bali, Tuesday, May 2.

Eka said in establishing the Chancellor of UdayanaProf University NGA and three other staff that the Bali Attorney General's Office investigators ensured that there was no intervention or pressure from certain parties.

Regarding the statement by the legal team which stated that the determination of the suspect in the alleged corruption of the institutional development donation fund (SPI) for the admission of new students to self-selection at Udayana University did not have strong evidence, Eka Sabana said the Bali Attorney General's Office had proven this in the pretrial.

"We did not respond to what the suspect said, yes, the court's decision has certainly analyzed it considering that what was conveyed was not true," he said.

According to him, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, investigators must have strong evidence before making someone a suspect, not instead naming a new suspect and then looking for evidence.

"The process towards determining the suspect must also go through an investigation, an investigation as regulated in the law such as collecting evidence, witness statements and so on," said Eka.

"If to automatically identify someone as a suspect, an investigation will be carried out first, there is evidence of witness testimony that explains that there was an act against the law, there are allegations of benefiting oneself or others, there is a state loss who committed the act," he said again.

Before the judge made a decision which basically rejected the application of the Chancellor of Udayana University and three other suspects, said Eka, the Bali Attorney General's Office believes that what the investigators are doing is in accordance with the standard operating procedure (SOP) set by the Law.

Furthermore, he said, the Special Crime Investigators of the Bali Attorney General's Office would continue the investigation process according to the previously determined schedule, such as examining witnesses and also examining suspects.

He also said the results of further investigations would determine whether there was a possibility of the emergence of new suspects in the alleged corruption case of SPI funds or the base money at Udayana University.

"The results of the investigation will lead to whether there are new suspects or there is involvement from other parties or what, that will be from the results of the investigation," he said, quoted by ANTARA.

Previously, the Denpasar District Court through the Tunggal Judge Agus Akhyudi had decided to reject the request for a pretrial lawsuit by the Chancellor of Udayana University, Prof. NGA, because the determination of the suspect was in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

Thus, the efforts of Prof. NGA and three other suspects to be separated from their status as suspects ran aground in front of the Denpasar District Court's decision.

Prof.'s legal team. NGA led by Gede Pasek Suardika assessed that the pretrial decision only met the formal requirements, but materially it had not been fulfilled.

According to Suardika, in the trial, the Bali Attorney General's Office should reveal evidence of state financial losses which are the results of the audit, so that the determination of Prof. NGA as a suspect can be accepted.

"We believe that with the emergence of the Constitutional Court's decision number 25 of 2016, actually state losses must appear first, then the person is suspected. However, if this is the concept, then we will test it at the bottom of the case," said Suardika.