Polda Metro Jaya Denies Dalil Firli Bahuri Regarding Inspector General Karyoto Threatens KPK Leadership

The Legal Team (Bidkum) of Polda Metro Jaya in the pretrial hearing of Firli Bahuri at the South Jakarta District Court/PHOTO: Rizky Adytia-VOI

JAKARTA - The Jakarta Police's Legal Advocacy Team (Bidkum) denied the argument of Firli Bahuri's camp regarding the interests of Inspector General Karyoto behind the handling of the alleged extortion or gratification case against the former Minister of Agriculture, Syahrul Yasin Limpo or SYL. "The applicant's response is that the petitioner's argument does not need to respond," said a member of the advocacy team for the Metro Jaya Police Bidkum during the trial, Wednesday, December 13. The argument was originally submitted by Firli's lawyer, Ian Iskandar, when reading the replica in the agenda of the follow-up trial of the Pretrial application at the South Jakarta District Court, Tuesday, December 12, evening. It is said that the alleged extortion case that has named Firli Bahuri as a suspect is not pure law enforcement. However, there are other things behind it, namely the investigation of the Hand Catch Operation (OTT) case at the Directorate General of Railways (DJKA) conducted by the KPK on April 12, 2023. In that case, Muhammad Suryo is said to be involved. He received a sleep fee of Rp11.2 billion. The money is said to have been received through transfers to his wife's account amounting to Rp9.5 billion. Inspector General Karyoro's involvement in the case was said to have helped Muhammad Suryo. In fact, he said, Karyoto, who has served as Kapolda Metro Jaya, had threatened investigators to the KPK leadership In fact, the two-star general is said to have visited Nawawi Pomolango and asked not to name Suryo as a suspect in the bribery case. Again, the Bidkum Polda Metro Jaya advocacy team, said that the argument from Firli Bahuri's camp was very biased. Because, never in the pretrial application. "Because the petitioner's argument has never been submitted to the previous petitioner, so it is very biased and there is no relevance at all with the determination of the applicant as a suspect," he continued. So, this matter is considered just a misleading and far-fetched assumption. In fact, it only aims to obscure the true purpose of pretrial.

"In addition, the petitioner's argument is a misleading assumption and makes it up to the applicant as an effort to lead opinions and obscure the purpose of the Pretrial as a form of panic for the applicant and the applicant's efforts to avoid legal responsibility due to the act of extortion or receiving gratuities or receiving gifts or promises," he said.