Pretrial Session, Kubu Firli Bahuri Presents Deputy Chairperson Of The KPK Alexander Mawarta As Witness

Deputy Chairperson of the KPK Alexander Mawarta was present as a witness at Firli's pretrial hearing (DOK Rizky AP/VOI)

JAKARTA - Kubu Firli Bahuri presented KPK Deputy Chair Alexander Mawarta as a witness in the follow-up trial of a pretrial lawsuit related to the determination of the suspect in the alleged extortion case against the former Minister of Agriculture, Syahrul Yasin Limpo or SYL, today. Alexander Mawarta is one of two witnesses presented. While the other witness is Agus Kuncara. The Deputy Chairperson of the KPK is seen wearing a dark brown motif cream shirt. One of the statements presented was regarding the handling of the alleged corruption case of the Directorate General of Railways (DJKA) involving Muhammad Suryo. Firli Bahuri asked the panel of judges, Imelda Herawati, to order the Metro Jaya Police Chief, Inspector General Karyoto, to issue a Letter of Termination of Investigation (SP3) for the alleged corruption case that named him a suspect. The request was contained in the petitum of Firli Bahuri's pretrial application which was read by his lawyer, Ian Iskandar, during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court. "Ordered the respondent (Kapolda Metro Jaya) to stop the investigation of the applicant (Firli Bahuri)," said Ian. The reason behind the request was because it was considered that the investigation warrant issued by Karyoto was invalid. This is because the letter was issued on the same day as the issuance of a police report (LP) on October 9.

Moreover, Firli's lawyer considered this, not in accordance with the provisions of the investigation and investigation process which has been explicitly and clearly regulated in Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), especially in Article 1 point 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Article 1 point 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code. "Declaring that all decisions or determinations issued further by the respondent are invalid with regard to the determination of the suspect against the applicant," said Ian.