SYL Extortion Case, Firli Bahuri Asked 15 Additional Questions

KPK Chairman Firli Bahuri/DOK PHOTO: Wardhany Tsa Tsia-VOI

JAKARTA - Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Firli Bahuri has completed an additional examination as a witness in the alleged extortion case of the former Minister of Agriculture, Syahrul Yasin Limpo. During the request for information process, investigators were said to have asked 15 questions.

"At least 15 questions have been asked to FB as the chairman of the Indonesian KPK in its capacity as a witness for further questioning today," said Director of Special Criminal Investigation at the Metro Jaya Police, Kombes Ade Safri Simanjuntak, to reporters, Thursday, November 16.

However, it was not clearly conveyed what investigators studied from the dozens of questions raised.

It was only emphasized that the examination process was to investigate allegations of extortion and or acceptance of gratuities.

In addition, Ade also only conveyed that the examination process for Firli Bahuri lasted 3.5 hours. Starting from 10.00 WIB to 13.45 WIB.

"Earlier at around 13.45 the investigation was completed on the FB of the Chairman of the Indonesian KPK," he said.

With Firli's examination completed, the total number of witnesses who have been questioned is 91 people. This number is likely to increase because the investigation process is still ongoing.

"An examination of 91 witnesses and 8 experts has been carried out," said Ade.

Firli came out of one of the buildings in the Criminal Investigation Unit of the National Police at around 14:36 WIB. The chairman of the KPK immediately got into a black car with police number B 1917 TJQ.

Firli Bahuri seems to be trying to avoid journalists. This is because the examination room or the Directorate of Corruption Crimes at Bareskrim is not inside the building where he is going outside.

Not only that, Firli had time to lie down in the car by lowering the back of the chair. Even his face was covered with a black bag.

In this case, it is believed that there was a criminal violation of Article 12 letter e, Article 12 letter B and or Article 11 of the Corruption Act Junto Article 65 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.