Court Rejects Exception Of Ex-Cawabup Purbalingga In Case Of Alleged Corruption In Red Bridge Project

Former Deputy Regent of Purbalingga Zaini Makarim Supriyatno during a trial at the Semarang Corruption Court, Wednesday (26/3/2025). (ANTARA/IC Senjaya)

JATENG - The Corruption Court (Tipikor) Semarang rejected the exception of the former Deputy Regent Candidate (Cawabup) of Purbalingga Zaini Makarim Supriyatno who was accused of a corruption case in the construction of the Gintung River Red Bridge, Purbalingga Regency, which cost the state finances Rp13.2 billion.

"Declaring that the defendant's exception was not accepted, ordering the public prosecutor to continue the investigation of the case," said Chief Judge Siti Insirah during a trial at the Corruption Court, Semarang, Wednesday, March 26, which was confiscated by Antara.

In their consideration, the judge stated that the prosecutor's indictment had met the formal and material requirements.

According to the judge, the objection submitted by the defendant on the prosecutor's indictment was considered to have been included in the subject matter of the case and needed further proof.

"The prosecutor's indictment has been prepared clearly, completely, and carefully," he said.

Based on this decision, the judge ordered the prosecutor to continue the process of examining the case by presenting witnesses at the upcoming trial.

Previously, former Purbalingga Cawabup Zaini Makarim Supriyatno along with two former heads of the local public work and spatial planning (DPUPR) were tried in a case of alleged corruption in the construction of the Gintung River Red Bridge, Purbalingga Regency, which cost the state Rp13.2 billion.

The corruption crime occurred in the construction of bridges in the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years.

Apart from the defendant Zaini, two former heads of the Purbalingga Regency DPUPR who were also tried in the case, respectively Setiyadi and Priyo Satmoko.

The defendant Zaiki Makarim acted as a consultant in the supervisory in the project.

For his actions, the defendant was charged with Article 2 Paragraph 1 or Article 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001.