No room for complacency on judicial reform<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, a panel of judges found House of Representatives
\nSpeaker Akbar Tandjung guilty of the misuse of non-budgetary
\nfunds belonging to the National Logistics Agency (Bulog), and
\nsentenced him to three years imprisonment. The two other
\ndefendants in the case were sentenced to one year each. The
\nJakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked to lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis,
\nwho is also a member of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro).<\/p>\n
Question: Has the verdict against Akbar Tandjung restored the
\nreputation of our courts to any extent?<\/p>\n
Answer: Pending the decision of the high court, as the
\ndefendants have appealed, the three year verdict showed the panel
\nof judges acted independently of the testimony given by expert
\nwitnesses, most of whom clearly favored Akbar.<\/p>\n
However, the judges were not bold enough to make any legal
\nbreakthroughs. The facts as revealed involved a number of
\npotential witnesses but they were never brought before the court,
\nso the decision was mainly based on the prosecution evidence.<\/p>\n
So the flow of the Rp 40 billion was not traced to the maximum
\nextent by the prosecution and the panel of judges; the use of the
\nBulog funds remains a mystery.<\/p>\n
Q: Was the comparatively light sentence mainly due to the legal
\ndefinition of corruption, which only applies if a loss to the
\nstate results, whereas in this case the funds were returned?<\/p>\n
A: People will naturally question the sentence when one considers
\nthe maximum sentence for corruption (20 years). However, one must
\nlook at the context. The defendant is the speaker of the House of
\nRepresentatives and the chairman of the former ruling party,
\nGolkar. Whatever the length of the sentence, it was in effect a
\npolitical verdict, a very heavy one (for the defendant).<\/p>\n
The question is whether Akbar can hang on as Golkar chairman
\nand House speaker. Although the decision is not binding yet, from
\nthe perspective of political ethics there should be a decision
\nthat he resign from both posts.<\/p>\n
The law in Indonesia does not stipulate such a measure; but a
\npolitical stance should be taken to maintain Akbar's integrity.<\/p>\n
Q: What are the prospects for future corruption cases?<\/p>\n
A: This case is a good precedent, and shows that no one is above
\nthe law, including high ranking officials. But we indeed face a
\ndeep crisis of confidence in the courts, so this verdict will not
\nautomatically boost public confidence in the consistency of the
\ncourts. This consistency will have to be tested in other cases,
\nand there are many of them pending.<\/p>\n
Q: If the judges this time refused to let themselves be influenced
\nby testimony that favored Akbar, what usually influences judges
\nin similar cases? Bribes?<\/p>\n
A: This is a case which deeply involved the public interest; it
\nwould have been very risky for the judges to have gone on the
\ntake. Usually, judges fear political intervention (in their
\ncourts), but at this juncture, when attempts are being made to
\nintroduce good governance, our nation remains among the 10 most
\ncorrupt in the world according to (Berlin-based) Transparency
\nInternational, and that corruption is seen as being most
\nprevalent in the courts. Thus, there is little choice for the
\ngovernment but to immediately attempt to restore the integrity of
\nthe courts.<\/p>\n
Not all decisions in corruption cases have resulted in
\nverdicts that satisfy the public's sense of justice. This has
\nalways been a crucial issue for the government in convincing
\ndonor countries and foreign investors that it is doing its utmost
\nto eradicate corruption.<\/p>\n
So the verdict in Akbar Tandjung's case is an indication (of a
\npossible restoration of judicial prestige), but it is too early
\nto be complacent about it. We must see other cases.<\/p>\n
Q: Do the judges know they are in the international spotlight
\nregarding corruption?<\/p>\n
A: They should know; and at meetings with donors in the
\nConsultative Group on Indonesia the judiciary is among the main
\nissues. It will be brought up at the next meeting in October, in
\nwhich the main agenda will include a request to our government to
\nconduct judicial reform.<\/p>\n
This will be the main focus as there is so much that the
\ngovernment has not done, which has raised doubts among donor
\ncountries whether we're really trying to eradicate corruption.<\/p>\n
One way would be through the setting up of an anticorruption
\ncommission, which until today has not been done despite the
\nissuance of the new corruption law.<\/p>\n
Many donor countries want to help with the eradication of
\ncorruption but they are doubtful; and this verdict will not
\nimmediately convince them.<\/p>\n
Q: What has been stopping the setting up of an anticorruption
\ncommission?<\/p>\n
A: If there was such a body with enough teeth, it would be a
\npotential instrument for wiping out corruption within the
\ngovernment. So there is considerable anxiety (about the planned
\nsetting up of the commission); the government is not yet ready to
\nbite the bullet as it could lead to many problems regarding
\ncorruption (in politics and government).<\/p>\n
Many parties are stalling this (plan). If the government is
\nreally intent on this, the Cabinet should have already ordered
\nthe justice ministry to set up the commission and forward all
\nnecessary bills to the government to then be prioritized for
\ndiscussion in the legislature. This has not happened.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-room-for-complacency-on-judicial-reform-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}