Legal Expert Talks About Human Rights In Determination Of Tom Lembong Suspect For Sugar Import Corruption

Tom Lembong/ANTARA PHOTO/Rivan Awal Lingga/aww.)

JAKARTA - Criminal law expert and Criminal Law Doctor from the University of Indonesia (UI) Chairul Huda assessed that the determination of the suspect to Thomas Trikasih Lembong or Tom Lembong as a suspect in the corruption case of sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade (Kemendag) in 2015-2016 violated human rights (HAM).

Chairul emphasized that the Attorney General's Office (AGO) should have followed the provisions stating that the determination of the suspect must be based on evidence.

"Well, this is certainly a violation of human rights. The law determines, the Criminal Code determines, the Constitutional Court's decision on 21 2014 determines to find the evidence first and then identify the suspect. This, yes, determine the suspect first and then look for evidence, arbitrarily, "said Chairul to reporters, Wednesday, November 20.

Chairul assessed that the investigation step had indirectly harassed the law in Indonesia. Because, the suspicion that Tom Lembong's detention was not for the sake of the law itself, but for political tendencies.

"In my opinion, this is if the investigation, the determination of suspects and detention are not carried out for the purpose of determining by law. But for other purposes outside the law, including political goals," he said.

He continued, the legal basis for determining the suspect was still not strong, considering that there was no clear and verified evidence of state losses. Moreover, claims of state losses were only submitted on November 9, 2024, while the determination of the suspect since October 29 in the same year.

Chairul highlighted the statement from the Attorney General's Office (AGO) which claimed state losses reached Rp. 400 billion. This figure is seen as too speculative and has not shown definite losses.

"When determining people as suspects, evidence, including evidence with state financial losses. So, if the exposure to state financial losses is later than determining suspects, it means that the determination of the suspect yesterday was premature, right," said Chairul.

Representative of the Attorney General's Office, Teguh A., in the trial of the defendant's rebuttal or exception at the South Jakarta District Court, said that his party had pocketed at least four pieces of evidence of Tom Lembong as a suspect in the corruption case of sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade (Kemendag) in 2015-2016.

"Four pieces of evidence were obtained based on Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely what was obtained was evidence of witness statements, experts, letters and clues and electronics," said Teguh, Tuesday, November 19.

Teguh emphasized that his party as the respondent had received preliminary evidence, namely the adequacy of at least two pieces of evidence. In fact, his party also had time to examine Tom as a witness before being named a suspect.

"The suspect has been examined as a witness before being named a suspect," he explained.

In the process of investigating the a quo case, investigators have obtained evidence of information from 122 witnesses including the petitioner. Then, the AGO also explained the related allegations that they did not provide the appointment of Tom Lembong's attorney independently.

Teguh emphasized that his party had fulfilled Tom Lembong's rights when he was a suspect in the alleged corruption case of sugar importation.

"Investigators have notified their rights as suspects, including informing the applicant's right to always be a suspect to appoint and be replaced by legal counsel," he said.

Tom Lembong filed a pretrial lawsuit after being named a suspect by the Attorney General's Office in a case of alleged corruption in sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade (Kemendag) in 2015-2016.