Otto Hasibuan Says ICW Intends To Defame Moeldoko Through Accusations Of Hunting For Rent

Moeldoko/PHOTO VIA ANTARA

JAKARTA - The attorney for Moeldoko's Presidential Chief of Staff, Otto Hasibuan, said that his party found that Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) intended to defame his client through accusations of hunting for rent through the distribution of the antiparasitic drug Ivermectin and the import of rice.

This finding was conveyed after his office observed press releases and discussions conducted by ICW researcher, Egi Primayogha who stated Moeldoko's involvement with PT Harsen Laboratories, a drug producer Ivermectin and rice imports carried out by the Indonesian Farmers' Association (HKTI) with PT Noorpay Nusantara.

"We have strong evidence of what they did from the press release and from the press conference. In public discussions we clearly found mens rea or the intention to defam Mr. Moeldoko," Otto said in an online conference, Friday, August 20. .

He also called the accusations against his client baseless even though ICW said it had conducted research. Otto said that the research carried out by the non-governmental organization was merely combining news in the media and carrying out analysis.

"So there is news, the bait in one news link is associated with other news, he just concluded. That's the only data that is owned by ICW. There is absolutely no other data," he said.

Even so, Otto said Moeldoko as a client did not want to immediately report Egi and ICW to the police. According to him, the former TNI Commander still wants to give the last chance so that as a legal representative, his party has sent a third warning letter.

"And we explicitly state that we will give him 5x24 hours. So 5 days so that he can relax," he said.

"We give them time to withdraw their statement and apologize to Mr. Moeldoko and if he doesn't retract (his statement, ed) and apologize, I state firmly that we as attorneys will report this to the police," added Otto.

Otto also said that what was conveyed by ICW had caused non-material losses because it suggested that Moeldoko was seeking profit by taking advantage of his position.

"So we are not demanding material losses, but we are demanding moral damages, namely defamation and that must be recovered," he concluded.