Hot Debate At The Trial Of Harun Masiku's Bribery Case, Hasto Berag With The Explanation Of Language Experts

The follow-up trial of the defendant PDI-P Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto at the Corruption Court (ANTARA)

JAKARTA - A linguist from the University of Indonesia (UI) Frans Asisi came to answer a number of objections submitted directly by PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto. Frans emphasized that he was not a fact witness, still a linguist who analyzed the conversation between Hasto and a number of related parties, based on illustrations and statements from KPK investigators.

This was conveyed by Frans in the follow-up to the bribery case for handling the replacement between the DPR's 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation with the defendant Hasto Kristiyanto at the Corruption Court, Central Jakarta, Thursday, June 12 evening.

Initially, the Chief Justice of the Corruption Court Rios Rahmanto asked Hasto to give a response to Frans Asisi's analysis and views as a linguist.

"I have some objections, Your Majesty," said Hasto.

Hasto admitted that he objected to expert statements that were considered ambiguous regarding illustrations as the background and basis for his context analysis. Second, Hasto also objected to Frans' analysis and conclusions about the figure of 'Father' in the communication between PDIP security guard Nurhasan and Harun Masiku.

According to Hasto, Frans' expert analysis of the word 'Father' which refers to him has been influenced by illustrations from investigators.

"The objection to the witness' testimony that 'Father' as a third party in the communication between Nurhasan and Harun Masiku is Hasto Kristiyanto, because it is influenced by the opinion of expert witnesses who are influenced by illustrations from investigators," said Hasto.

Responding to Hasto's objection, Frans emphasized that he remained with the statements, analysis and conclusions that had been previously conveyed. Including, the figure of 'Father' in the conversation between Harun Masiku and Nurhasan was Hasto Kristiyanto.

"Yes, I stick to my statement earlier," said Frans.

Frans said he was an expert who focused on analyzing the conversation between Hasto and the parties suspected of being involved in the bribery and obstruction of the investigation. Frans also admitted that he was not a fact witness.

"Because what was given to me or as my field, it was in the field of language. So I am not a witness who saw the facts of the trial, no," said Frans.

Hasto then expressed another objection regarding the attitude of expert neutrality. He considered, as an expert, Frans should be neutral and look at the context by examining other statements to support the context, which was conveyed by related parties, including in an open trial to the public.

Hearing Hasto's objection, Frans reiterated that his opinion was still in accordance with the linguistic analysis carried out based on the documents provided by investigators.

"Yes, it is still in accordance with my opinion," said Frans.

Hasto also expressed objections regarding the interpretation of the abbreviation of 'SS' associated with his residence. "Furthermore, the objection that SS said described my residence and a halfway house, even though it was an aspiration. Everyone can live there," he said.

Regarding the objection, Frans said that his statement was based on information obtained from investigators.

"I followed the information conveyed by the investigators," concluded Frans.

In the trial of the Hasto Kristiyanto case, the KPK prosecutor has presented four experts including Frans Asisi Datang. Three other experts who have been present at the Hasto trial are information technology experts from the Faculty of Computer Science, University of Indonesia (UI) Bob Hardian Syahbuddin, forensic expert from the KPK Hafni Ferdian, and criminal expert from UGM Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar.

In addition, the KPK prosecutor has presented approximately 15 witnesses from various professions and backgrounds. Including, KPK investigator Rossa Purbo Bekti and key witness former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri.

In this case, Hasto together with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah, former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri, and Harun Masiku were charged with giving bribes of Rp 600 million to Wahyu Setiawan (KPU commissioner) in the 2019-2020 period.

This bribe is so that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve the application of PAW for the South Sumatra Election Candidate (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR Members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the KPK OTT incident against Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto was also charged with Article 21 and Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph (1) and Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.