KPK Asked to Provide Assurance on the Law on Handling the Muhammad Suryo Case

Photo: Special

JAKARTA - The Executive Director of the Center for Budget Analysis (CBA) Uchok Sky Khadafi, asked the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to provide legal certainty regarding the handling of cases against Muhammad Suryo in the development of the Directorate General of Customs and Excise corruption case.

It is known that Muhammad Suryo has missed the KPK's summons since April 2026. Uchok Sky Khadafi considers the lack of clarity in the follow-up to law enforcement to be much more dangerous than the delay itself.

He revealed that this problem began when the KPK officially summoned Muhammad Suryo as a witness on April 2, 2026, but was not attended by the person concerned.

"A day later, the KPK announced that the person concerned did not meet the call without confirmation in advance. The KPK spokesperson at that time stated that he would coordinate again," said Uchok in a written statement, Tuesday, August 11.

The development of information appeared at the beginning of June 2026. The Deputy for Enforcement and Execution of the KPK, Asep Guntur Rahayu, said that Muhammad Suryo could not be examined because he had an accident. The anti-corruption agency at that time ensured that there was still an opportunity for a follow-up examination.

However, the situation became contradictory when on July 3, 2026, the KPK Prosecutor in the trial of the indictment against the former customs official actually publicly mentioned the name of Muhammad Suryo as one of the parties suspected of giving gratification of Rp. 100 million.

Until the investigation as of August 10, 2026 or more than four months since the first summons, there has been no official announcement from the KPK regarding whether the re-examination has been carried out or what the legal status of the testimony is currently.

Uchok emphasized that objectively, Muhammad Suryo's absence could not initially be called a form of disobedience due to health reasons due to an accident. However, Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) which has been in force since January 2, 2026 has actually provided a clear legal instrument for investigators.

He explained, based on Article 28 of the new KUHAP, investigators can issue a second call by asking for the assistance of authorized officials to bring witnesses if they fail to appear again without a valid reason.

Meanwhile, he continued, Article 29 provides a humanitarian space so that investigators can directly visit the residence of the suspect if they are hampered by health problems such as illness.

"The construction is simple: if you are healthy, call back or pick up forcibly according to Article 28; if you are sick or have an accident, do an examination at the residence according to Article 29. What is difficult for the public to understand is why the legal process can be stopped for months only on the cliché phrase 'will be rescheduled'," said Uchok.

As a comparison, CBA noted the handling of other cases at the Attorney General's Office in July 2026, where a witness who was unable to attend due to health reasons was immediately rescheduled two days later by referring to the new KUHAP mechanism. This comparison shows that law enforcement can actually run quickly and measured.

To dampen wild speculation in the community and prevent the perception of a double standard in law enforcement, CBA urges the KPK to immediately answer four procedural questions without having to reveal the secrets of the investigation:

Has Muhammad Suryo been physically examined after missing the April 2, 2026 call? If not, has the follow-up call based on the mechanism of Article 28 of Law No. 20 of 2025 been officially sent?

If health or accident reasons are still an obstacle, has the option of examination at home based on Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code been implemented or considered?

Considering that the name and the alleged flow of Rp. 100 million have been included in the KPK prosecutor's indictment in July 2026, have the facts been confirmed to the person concerned?

"The credit of an anti-corruption institution is not measured by how loud the rhetoric of eradicating corruption is voiced, but by the consistency of the application of the law of events fairly and without discrimination," he concluded.