Former Deputy Minister Of Law And Human Rights Revokes Pretrial Lawsuit Even Though It Has Been 2 Trials

The atmosphere of the pretrial hearing of former Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej at the South Jakarta District Court, Jakarta, (DOK ANTARA)

JAKARTA - Former Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights (Wamenkumham) Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej or Eddy Hiariej withdrew the pretrial lawsuit at the South Jakarta District Court. Eddy Hiariej and his personal assistant, Yogi Arie Rukmana and his lawyer, Yosi Andika, were supposed to sue pretrial for his determination as a suspect in the alleged bribery case. "It is true (the pretrial lawsuit was revoked)," said Eddy Hiariej's attorney, Ricky Sitohang, to reporters, Wednesday, December 20. The reason for the revocation of the pretrial lawsuit is because there are several substances that will be completed. After completion, it will be re-registered. "There is an addition of substance, it will be re-registered," said Ricky. It is known that the trial of the pretrial lawsuit filed by Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej or Eddy Hiariej has been held twice. The first trial was reading the petitum from the former Wamenkumham camp. Then, the second trial with the agenda of the KPK's answer or the exception of the applicant.

Meanwhile, the petitums requested by Eddy Hiariej, Yogi Arie Rukmana and Yosi Andika Mulyadi are believed; 1. Accept and grant the pretrial petition submitted by Petitioner I Prof. Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej SH, MHUm., Petitioner II Yogi Arie Rukmana and Petitioner III Yosi Andika Mulyadi, SH for the whole. 2. State that the actions of the Respondents who named the Petitioners as suspects without procedures are juridical defects or against the law and declared null and void. 3. State the Investigation Order Number: Sprin.Dik./147/DIK.00/11/2023 dated 24 November 2023 which stipulates Petitioner I Prof. Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, SH, MHUm. as a suspect, Investigation Order Number: Sprin.Dik./149/DIK.00/11/2023 On 24 November 2023 which stipulates Petitioner II Yogi Arie Rukmana as a suspect and Investigation Order Number: Sprin.Dik./148/DIK.00/11/2023 dated 24 November 2023 which stipulates Petitioner III Yosi Andika Mulyadi, SH, as a suspect by the Respondent related to criminal events as referred to in Article 12 letter a or Article 12 letter b or Article 11 of the Corruption Eradication Law in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code is invalid, and therefore the determination of a quo does not have binding power according to law and is declared null. 4. Declare invalid and have no legal force to bind the determination of the suspects against the Petitioners by the Respondent. 5. Ordered the Respondent to stop the entire series of investigations based on the Investigation Order Number: Sprin.Dik./DIK.00/11/2023 On November 24, 2023, which stipulates Petitioner I Prof. Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, SHum. as a suspect, Investigation Order Number: Sprin.Dik./149/DIK.00/11/2023 On November 24, 2023 which named Petitioner II Yogi Arie Rukmana as a suspect and Investigation Order Number: Sprin.Dik./DIK.00/11/2023 On November 24, 2023 which named Petitioner III Yosi Andika Mulyadi, SH as a suspect. 6. State that the entire series of account blocking, prohibition of traveling abroad, searches and confiscation by the Respondent against the Petitioners or the families of the Petitioners issued based on the Investigation Order Number Sprin.Dik/147/DIK.00/01/11/2023 for Petitioner I, Sprin Number. Dik/149/DIK.00/01/11/2023 for Petitioner II and Sprin Number.Dik/148/DIK.00/01/11/2023 for Petitioner III were declared invalid and ordered to the Respondent to return it to its original state within 3x24 hours of time since this decision was read out. 7. Declare that all decisions or determinations issued further by the Respondent are invalid with regard to the determination of the suspects against the Petitioners. 8. Restoring all legal rights of the Petitioners for forced efforts that have been made by the Respondent. 9. Punish the Respondent to pay the court fees incurred in the a quo case.