SLEMAN \u2014 The corruption case implicating former Deputy Attorney\nGeneral for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), Febrie Adriansyah, has been\ndescribed as a reflection of the weak oversight mechanisms between\ninstitutions and the lack of public control within Indonesia\u2019s law\nenforcement system. Professor Dr Phil. Gabriel Lele, of the Department\nof Management and Public Policy at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), said\nthe considerable authority held by law enforcement officials must be\nmatched by strong oversight mechanisms so as not to open the door to\nabuse of power.<\/p>\n
The case came to light after investigators from the National Police\u2019s\nCorruption Eradication Corps (Kortastipidkor) seized evidence including\n74.01 kilogrammes of gold bullion and hundreds of billions of rupiah in\ncash in various foreign denominations from several locations raided.\nAccording to Gabriel, the sheer value of the evidence underscores the\nimportance of overseeing institutions that hold great authority in law\nenforcement and corruption eradication.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are talking about an institution entrusted with the authority to\neradicate corruption, yet it finds itself at the epicentre of\ncorruption. When authority accumulates within a single institution\nwithout adequate control from other bodies, particularly from the\npublic, that authority can very easily be misused,\u201d he said on Tuesday\n(21\/7\/2026).<\/p>\n
According to Gabriel, institutions such as Jampidsus hold substantial\nauthority in handling large-scale corruption cases, or grand corruption.\nThat authority, he said, should therefore be accompanied by effective\noversight mechanisms.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe principle of mutual control is extremely important. Such control\nshould not only be exercised between government institutions, but it\nmust also be ensured that the public has room to carry out oversight,\u201d\nhe said.<\/p>\n
In his view, the alleged corruption case shows that oversight cannot\nrely solely on internal institutional mechanisms. Inter-institutional\noversight and public participation are also needed to ensure that law\nenforcement proceeds transparently and accountably.<\/p>\n
Gabriel also highlighted reports that the case might be transferred\nto the Attorney General\u2019s Office for handling. He argued that such a\nstep risked creating psychological and institutional problems, as the\ncase involves a senior official from the very same institution.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe way I see it, it could be described as merely a cooling-down\nstrategy. But at the same time, it becomes a hot potato for the\nprosecution. How can they resolve a case involving one of their own\nsenior officials?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
Gabriel added that such a situation could undermine public confidence\nin how the case is handled. For that reason, he considered delegating\nthe case to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to be the more\nappropriate option for safeguarding investigative independence.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe most ideal solution would be to hand the case over to the KPK.\nIf the prosecution handles it, there are psychological constraints and\ninstitutional constraints, and I believe the public would not really\ntrust that the case could be thoroughly investigated by the\nprosecution,\u201d he said.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ugm-professor-highlights-weak-institutional-oversight-in-febrie-adriansyah-corruption-case-1784991093", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }