AGO Expert Witness Affirms State Loss Must Be Real In Determination Of Suspect Nadiem

Prof. Suparji Ahmad as an expert witness. (IST)

The expert witnesses presented by the Attorney General's Office (AGO) in the pretrial hearing of the alleged corruption case in the procurement of Chromebook confirmed that evidence of state financial losses in corruption must be in the form of real losses. This is in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court which states that state losses are not potential (potential loss).

Criminal law expert who is an expert witness to the AGO, Prof. Suparji Ahmad stated that state losses must actually occur and the exact amount can be calculated in the process of determining corruption suspects, not only the possibility of happening in the future. "Thus, the elements of 'real and definite' are important conditions in proving the element of state financial losses," he said in the follow-up trial of Nadiem Anwar Makarim's pretrial at the South Jakarta District Court, Wednesday, October 8.

The Professor of Law at Al-Azhar University Indonesia (UAI) said that based on the legal principle of proof, elements of state financial losses must be clearly and concretely proven. Ideally, reports on the results of calculating state financial losses were also available before the determination of the suspect.

In an interview with the media in mid-July 2025, the AGO stated that state losses from the case of procuring 1.2 million Chromebook laptops reached Rp 1.98 trillion. This amount was obtained from the Item software Chrome Device Management (CDM) worth Rp 480 billion and the difference in contract prices with laptop principals outside the CDM worth Rp 1.5 trillion. So far there has been no report on the results of the audit of state losses.

Nadiem's team of attorneys, Dodi S. Abdulkadir said that until the fourth pretrial hearing, the Attorney General's Office had not been able to show a real state financial loss calculation report (actual loss). According to him, the report should have been prepared before the determination of the suspect's status was made.

Nadiem's Minutes of Investigation (BAP) also did not find any questions related to the figure or amount of state losses. According to him, this shows that the determination of the suspect against Nadiem does not have a strong legal basis.

"We have examined all the contents of the BAP and there is absolutely no question about state losses. How can someone be accused of corruption without calculating state losses?" he said.

Furthermore, the legal team assessed that there was no official report from the state auditor agency to weaken the position of investigators in determining Nadiem as a suspect. Without the results of a valid and verified audit, the elements of state losses in corruption cases cannot be met legally.

Dodi emphasized that the hasty action in determining the suspect has the potential to violate the principles of legal certainty and justice. They demanded that the AGO be more careful and prioritize the principles of due process of law, so that the legal process remains accurate and fair.

Criminal Law expert Dr. Chairul Huda, SH., MH who is an expert witness presented by the Legal Team Nadiem Makarim in the previous pretrial hearing also stated that state financial losses that became the basis for determining suspects must be in the form of real and definite losses (actual loss), not just potential losses or allegations (potential losses). This statement is in accordance with the material submitted by Supardji.

Chairul said that the determination of the suspect regarding state financial losses was only based on the results of the exposure, which is an investigation practice that cannot be seen as legal evidence. If it continues, this action is a form of arbitrariness that cannot be justified at all.