Clamor over detention of House Speaker Akbar<\/p>\n
Todung Mulya Lubis, Lawyer, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Why was Akbar Tandjung, the legislature Speaker, detained by
\nthe Attorney General in relation to the Bulog scandal?<\/p>\n
It was argued that Akbar's respected position would lead him
\nto be cooperative in the entire investigation process, and
\nindeed, he repeatedly stated that he would submit to the legal
\nprocess, and was ready to go to the Attorney General's office
\nwhen needed.<\/p>\n
It would not be wrong to assume, based on Akbar's statements,
\nthat the investigation into his case would proceed smoothly. So
\nwhat is the urgency of Akbar's detention? These questions led to
\nmany attempts at analysis -- that the detention was a result of
\npolitics, as if all this were related to a power struggle aimed
\nto destroying Golkar's chances in the looming 2004 elections.<\/p>\n
That Buloggate II is loaded with politics cannot be denied.
\nThe fact that a figure named Akbar Tandjung is alleged to have
\nabused nonbudgetary funds controlled by the State Logistics
\nAgency (Bulog) in itself is political because Akbar is the
\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives (DPR), Golkar chairman
\nand a former high-ranking New Order official.<\/p>\n
If it is proven that the funds were indeed used by Golkar in
\nthe past elections, it would be the largest case of \"money
\npolitics\" ever to have reached the court.<\/p>\n
In such cases it is impossible to draw a line between politics
\nand the law, as the case would have far-reaching political
\nimplications for the nation's political life.<\/p>\n
The country's political map is undergoing changes that will,
\nin turn, affect the political balance of the future.<\/p>\n
The process of law, including Akbar's detention, need not be
\nseen as an oddity. The detention of a suspect in a corruption
\ncase is quite usual. Signs of Akbar's detention were clear
\nfollowing the detention of Rahardi Ramelan, the former Bulog
\nchairman who channeled the nonbudgetary funds to Akbar when he
\nwas state secretary.<\/p>\n
So it would have been impossible not to detain Akbar after
\nRahardi was detained. If Akbar were not detained many would have
\nconcluded that law enforcers were being discriminatory and were
\nscared of high-ranking officials. The credibility of the Attorney
\nGeneral's office would have deteriorated even further.<\/p>\n
Is there really reason to believe that Akbar will escape or
\ndestroy evidence or obstruct investigation? Again there are many
\nreasons to believe that Akbar would be cooperative. Yet the
\nreasons for his detention are also solid, and the prosecutors
\nmust therefore complete investigations and send the dossiers to
\ncourt.<\/p>\n
The public is entitled to justice for the abuse of the funds.
\nAnd if Akbar thinks his detention violates the due process of
\nlaw, the pretrial process must immediately begin. This moment
\nwill then be a test of whether Akbar's detention has strong legal
\ngrounds, or whether it was instead driven by the influence of
\nthose in power.<\/p>\n
It is ironic that the politicizing over Akbar's detention has
\nbeen displayed by so many parties. Golkar sent many of its
\nlegislators to the Attorney General to pressure the office. They
\nreportedly made a petition against the detention by Golkar
\nmembers, and the Attorney General may be summoned by the DPR for
\nclarification. Earlier a number of politicians from the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) went to
\nthe Attorney General's office to pressure it into detaining
\nAkbar.<\/p>\n
The politicizing of the issue was too blatant, and we have
\nwitnessed the lack of respect the politicians have toward the
\nindependence of the legal process.<\/p>\n
Politicians outside Golkar also joined the bandwagon on
\nAkbar's detention, thus it is not impossible that the Attorney
\nGeneral's Office might feel a little apprehensive.<\/p>\n
It was this politicizing that may have changed the place of
\ndetention, initially planned for Salemba prison. The Attorney
\nGeneral clearly violated the principle of equality before the
\nlaw. The Criminal Code states that detention by the police or at
\nthe Attorney General's office is only allowed if the country does
\nnot have a state penitentiary.<\/p>\n
Some might think this is a trivial matter but it hurts not
\nonly Rahardi, also a former high-ranking official, but also the
\nprinciple of legal supremacy, which should not be discriminatory.<\/p>\n
The Attorney General may detain a person for 20 days during
\ninvestigation, and, if necessary, this detention may be prolonged
\nto a maximum of 40 days. If the Attorney General's Office works
\nextra hard it should be able to prepare the files and ask the
\ncourt for a trial.<\/p>\n
The case will no doubt be a very important one, as this would
\nbe the first time that a senior politician, DPR Speaker and
\nGolkar chairman, is tried for corruption. The case is also
\nimportant politically, because if it were proved that the
\nnonbudgetary funds were used by Golkar, then based on Law 2\/1999
\non political parties, Golkar could be dissolved and banned from
\nparticipating in the 2004 elections. We would then witness a
\nlawsuit against Golkar's dissolution at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Golkar people should not be emotional over Akbar's detention,
\nbut should instead start thinking about an effective strategy to
\navoid the party's downfall -- against the possible evidence of
\nits involvement in money politics.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/clamor-over-detention-of-house-speaker-akbar-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}