Unconvincing, predictable verdict in Akbar's case<\/p>\n
Teten Masduki, Chairman Indonesian Corruption Watch, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The law in Indonesia used to be helpless against those with
\npolitical and monetary influence. But this time it departed from
\nthe usual practice. The Central Jakarta district court sentenced
\nAkbar Tandjung to three years in prison, with his two accomplices
\nWinfried Simatupang and Dadang Ruskandar getting an 18-month jail
\nterm each. All of them were found guilty of corruption in the
\ncase of misappropriation of Rp 40 billion in non-budgetary funds
\nof the State Logistics Agency (Bulog).<\/p>\n
Despite the surprising guilty verdict, the public does not
\nseem to be convinced that justice was done. It is even widely
\nbelieved that when Akbar appeals to the High Court or the Supreme
\nCourt, he will be acquitted as was the case with Bank Indonesia
\nGovernor Sjahril Sabirin.<\/p>\n
Some even consider the court decision unfair, because it was
\ntoo lenient for an act of corruption committed by a public
\nofficial amid our economic difficulties. Based on Law No.20\/2001
\non corruption, perpetrators of this crime are liable to capital
\npunishment if committed during an economic crisis, though the law
\nis not retroactive. Akbar did his deed in 1999.<\/p>\n
Others maintain that the verdict on Akbar is not worth
\ndebating as the political consequences remain unchanged. It will
\ntrigger political moves within the House of Representatives (DPR)
\nand the Golkar Party to dismiss Akbar as leaders of both
\ninstitutions. However, the DPR might not likely unseat Akbar
\ngiven the current political oligarchy, which serves as the basis
\nof post-Soeharto multiparty corruption.<\/p>\n
The abuse of power by Akbar concerns the exercise of his
\npolitical clout as state secretary (at the time) and Golkar
\nchairman in siphoning off Bulog funds for purposes beyond the
\nagency's core business. Akbar was then not only involved along
\nwith then president B.J. Habibie and Bulog chief Rahardi Ramelan
\nin making the "policy" to procure basic necessities with Bulog
\nfunds, but also in its implementation.<\/p>\n
As policy makers, Habibie and Akbar are not to blame as long
\nas the policy proves to be free from corruption. But Akbar became
\nunpardonable when he directly appointed Raudlatul Jananah
\nFoundation as the party executing commodity procurement without
\nbids, thus violating Presidential Decree No. 16\/1994 on the
\nprocurement of goods and services. Furthermore, Akbar was not one
\nof the officials authorized to carry out the safety net program.
\nRegardless, the procurement of the basic necessities proved to be
\nan invented scenario.<\/p>\n
The Bulog funds were most likely used for political aims
\ninstead of the safety net (JPS) program. With the commitment of
\nRp 17.79 trillion in November 1998 from international donors
\nthrough the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development
\nBank and the World Bank for the three-year JPS program including
\nthe procurement of basic necessities, it was illogical for the
\ngovernment to spend Rp 40 billion Bulog funds in February 1999
\nfor the same thing, while Bulog had handled its own food
\npurchasing schemes.<\/p>\n
Further doubts were raised when suspect Rahardi Ramelan denied
\nattending the Cabinet session on Feb. 10, 1999 which Akbar said
\nhad decided on the use of Rp 40 billion Bulog funds for the
\nprocurement.<\/p>\n
So where did the funds go? Presumably the money went to fund
\nthe general election campaign, though the expense was not
\nincluded in Golkar's official accounts, thus escaping an audit by
\nthe elections committee.<\/p>\n
In early March 1999 the Golkar Party organized a large-scale
\nrally to declare the newly reformed party at Senayan stadium, at
\nthe initial stage of campaigning for the elections in July 1999.
\nThe prosecutor should have proven this suspicion by tracking down
\nthe flow of funds and the people cashing them from banks, as well
\nas investigating the origin of the Rp 40 billion which co-
\ndefendant Winfried gave to the prosecutor, after the deception of
\na feed-the-poor project could no longer be covered up. But the
\nprosecutor did not attempt to follow the money trail.<\/p>\n
It seems particularly odd that the prosecutor only tried to
\nprove that the "Mahakam scenario", developed by Akbar, was a
\nlegitimate, yet failed undertaking. In this scenario, Akbar,
\nRahardi and others met at the Mahakam hotel and agreed on the
\nversion that the money was to buy rice for the poor by using the
\nRaudlatul Jannah foundation (Dadang) and distributed through a
\nsubcontractor (Winfried).<\/p>\n
Rahardi then carefully explained the Mahakam scenario during
\nhis own trial. The whole point of which was to deflect the real
\nuse of the money, and thereby, in the logic of the prosecutors,
\njudges and Akbar, exonerating Golkar.<\/p>\n
This trial fell short of dealing with the true substance of
\ncorruption. The court failed to remove the cover-up shrouding the
\nmatter. Akbar is only an inevitable victim of the attempt to
\nreduce the number of sacrifices to a minimum. Akbar could have
\nfollowed Rahardi by withdrawing all his confessions, so that he
\nwould not become the only victim.<\/p>\n
But that would have meant implicating Golkar. He would have
\nalso lost both posts of Golkar chairman and House Speaker. Akbar
\nhas instead fought staunchly to maintain these positions,
\nrefusing to resign in spite of the guilty verdict.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/unconvincing-predictable-verdict-in-akbars-case-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}