Sugianto Sabran's Victory Claims Ben-Ujang On Fundamental Fraud In The Central Kalimantan Pilgub

ILLUSTRATION / BUILDING MK (ANTARA)

JAKARTA - The pair of candidates for governor and deputy governor of Central Kalimantan (Central Kalimantan) Ben Brahim-Ujang Iskandar asked the Constitutional Court (MK) to set aside the application of the threshold according to the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 6 of 2020 regarding the dispute over the election results. The reason was that Ben-Ujang found that fraud was fundamental in the Pilgub of Central Kalimantan.

This was conveyed by the attorney for governor candidate number 01 Ben Brahim-Ujang Iskandar Ramdansyah. This statement responds to the response of the Central Kalimantan KPU and related parties at the trial at the Constitutional Court.

"We ask the Constitutional Court to set aside the application of the threshold because fraud has occurred and it is fundamental in nature," said Ramdansyah as quoted by Antara, Wednesday, February 3.

Previously, the Central Kalimantan KPU said Ben Brahim-Ujang Iskandar did not have the legal standing to file a lawsuit against the election dispute.

This, said the attorney of the Central Kalimantan KPU, was because the difference in the votes acquired by the applicant and related parties did not meet the 1.5 percent threshold requirement as stipulated in the provisions of article 158 paragraph 1 of the Pilkada Law.

Responding to this, Ramdansyah mentioned three examples of MK decisions that ignore the difference in threshold. First, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 42 / PHP.BUP-XV / 2017 concerning Disputes over the Election Results of the Regent and Deputy Regent of Puncak Jaya Regency 2017.

The Constitutional Court did not use a threshold application and ordered a re-vote in the Pilkada of Puncak Jaya Regency at that time.

Second, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 52 / PHP.BUP-XV / 2017 concerning the Dispute on the Election Results of the Regent and Deputy Regent of Yapen Islands Regency 2017. The MK assesses that there has been no recapitulation of the votes acquired by each pair of candidates, so the threshold provisions in cases cannot be used. this.

Third, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 51 / PHP.BUP-XV / 2018 concerning the Dispute on the Results of the 2018 Mimika Regent and Deputy Regent Election.

In this case, the Constitutional Court postponed the enactment of the threshold to first examine the crucial issues argued by the petitioners regarding the absence and validity of decrees regarding the appointment of polling organizers (KPPS) in 8 (eight) districts.

"In Ben-Ujang's lawsuit, the KPU and Bawaslu are suspected of not being neutral in the implementation of the 2020 Central Kalimantan Pilkada. We believe the Court will continue our lawsuit trial," he said.

Ramdansyah mentioned several indications of the defendant's neutrality, such as the use of the slogan "Kalteng Batuah" which was deliberately and consciously used by the Central Kalimantan Provincial Election Commission.

The slogan in question is very similar to the slogan of candidate pair number 02. This can be seen in one of the props (masks) used by the KPU. The self-image between the KPU of Central Kalimantan Province and the candidate pair Sugianto Sabran-Edi Pratowo shows his neutrality.

Another fundamental fraud was the neglect by the KPU and Bawaslu of Central Kalimantan on the replacement of officials six months before the date of appointment of a pair of candidates until the end of the term of office.

"There is an undeniable fact that the serial number of the candidate pairs for the election for the Governor and Deputy Governor of Central Kalimantan on September 24. This means that some of the mutations made by the incumbent above are suspected to have violated Election rules, and Bawaslu has allowed them, "he said.

Alleged neutrality of the Central Kalimantan Provincial Bawaslu was seen when only one-sidedly took witness testimony, without considering the legal facts of the reporter.

This deed shows Bawaslu in making decisions contrary to the universal principles of Audi et Alteram Partem. Thus the Bawaslu decision is only based on one-sided information and is certainly not based on actual facts.

This shows that Bawaslu has violated the principle of impartiality. Bawaslu is not professional or commits and violates the principles of professional election organizers.

"We have submitted additional evidence to the report panel regarding the neutrality and unprofessionalism of the respondent and related to the Honorary Council of Election Administrators (DKPP)," said Ramdansyah.