Witnesses bicker over corruption law<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Two expert witnesses gave contradicting
\ntestimony on Wednesday over the authority of Attorney General
\nMarzuki Darusman to order the arrest and investigation into
\nformer minister of mines and energy Ginandjar Kartasasmita over
\nhis alleged involvement in a graft case.<\/p>\n
In a hearing at the South Jakarta District Court, former head
\nof the Jakarta Military High Court Col. (ret) Eddy Purnomo said
\nthe Indonesian Military (TNI) chief, along with the military
\npolice and the military prosecutors, should have conducted the
\ninvestigation.<\/p>\n
\"It is in line with Article 69 of Law No. 31\/1997 on military
\ntribunals. We have to refer to the law because Ginandjar was an
\nactive military officer when the case occurred between 1992 and
\n1995,\" said Eddy.<\/p>\n
Ginandjar, who served as minister of mines and energy from
\n1988 to 1993 and later as coordinating minister for the economy,
\nfinance and industry for the following five years, was an Air
\nForce's vice marshall before retiring in May 1996.<\/p>\n
Eddy cited Article 9 of the law which stipulates that a
\nmilitary officer should be tried in a military court.<\/p>\n
\"We cannot refer to Law No. 3\/1971 on corruption, either, as
\nit has been replaced by a 1997 law, also on corruption,\" he said.<\/p>\n
In handling Ginandjar's case, the Attorney General's Office
\nhas been referring to the 1971 law, especially Articles 25 and 26
\nregarding bringing a soldier to court.<\/p>\n
Article 25 stipulates that any trial of a corruption case
\ncommitted by a soldier and a civilian is held by a civilian
\ncourt, while Article 26 stipulates that the attorney general
\nleads or coordinates the investigation of cases, involving
\nmilitary officers and civilians.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, legal expert Harkristuti Harkrisnowo from
\nUniversity of Indonesia, who testified after Eddy, said there was
\nnothing unlawful about the investigation and the arrest conducted
\nby the Attorney General's Office based on the 1971 law.<\/p>\n
\"The law that should be applied upon a case is the one which
\nwas valid when the crime occurred,\" Harkristuti said.<\/p>\n
The government has issued the latest anti-corruption Law No.
\n31\/1999.<\/p>\n
\"There's no significant difference between the 1999 and the
\n1971 laws. But legally, we choose the one which was more
\nfavorable, that is the older law,\" Harkristuti said.<\/p>\n
The only mistake that the Attorney General made, she said, was
\nasking for the TNI chief's permission to investigate and arrest
\nGinandjar.<\/p>\n
\"That was definitely a blunder. The Attorney General has the
\nauthority, so he has to be confident with it,\" Harkristuti said.<\/p>\n
However, she said, the blunder would have an impact on the
\nlegal status of the investigation and the arrest.<\/p>\n
During the hearing, one of Ginandjar's lawyers O.C. Kaligis
\naccused Harkristuti of siding with the Attorney General.<\/p>\n
Presiding Judge Rusman Dani Achmad told Kaligis to calm down
\nand not to force his opinions on others.<\/p>\n
Ginandjar is being accused of abusing his power in his
\ncapacity as the minister of mines and energy in several
\ngovernment contracts between 1992 and 1995, which had allegedly
\ncaused some US$24.8 million in losses to the state.<\/p>\n
The case centers on the deals between state-owned oil and gas
\ncompany Pertamina and privately-run PT Ustraindo Petro Gas which
\nallegedly violated regulations on a technical assistance
\nagreement because they covered oil fields which were still
\nproductive at that time.<\/p>\n
Ginandjar has been detained at the Attorney General's Office
\ndetention house since Friday.<\/p>\n
He filed a lawsuit on April 3 with the South Jakarta District
\nCourt challenging the validity of the investigation and the
\narrest.<\/p>\n
His also questioned the decision of the Attorney General's
\nOffice to exclude the period of his hospital treatment from the
\ndetention period.<\/p>\n
Although the arrest warrant on Ginandjar was issued on March
\n31, the 20-day detention was only effective from April 7 when
\nstate prosecutors transferred him from Pertamina Hospital to the
\nAttorney General's Office detention house.<\/p>\n
The Attorney General's Office, represented by a team of
\nlawyers led by Barman Zahir, however, defended its authority to
\nset the detention period.<\/p>\n
The verdict will be issued next Monday. (hdn)<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/witnesses-bicker-over-corruption-law-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }