Akbar behaved shamefully: Dissenting justice

Akbar behaved shamefully: Dissenting justice

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

"At a time when the country was sinking in the crisis, the
actions of the defendant truly violated one's sense of justice."

Akbar abused his power, said Abdurrahman Saleh, the only
justice with a dissenting opinion on the panel of five justices
of the Supreme Court that finally acquitted Golkar leader Akbar
Tandjung on charges of misusing Rp 40 billion in funds belonging
to the State Logistics Agency (Bulog).

Abdurrahman said Tandjung had hurt the public, betrayed the
trust of the president who entrusted him with Rp 40 billion to be
disbursed to the poor, and was therefore involved in corruption.

The defendant, he said, "is proven guilty of shameful conduct
(perbuatan tercela) because he failed to show minimal,
appropriate efforts to protect state money amounting to Rp 40
billion, which the president entrusted to him to coordinate (its
use and disbursement for the poor) with related ministers."

The former head of the Jakarta Legal Aid Office, who read his
opinion after the announcement of the verdict, referred to legal
opinions that supported his argument.

He said that although the justices ruled that Akbar's action
did not violate the law, he was of the view that based on the law
the defendant's action could be categorized as "corrupt
practice".

This, he said, comprised the act of enriching oneself, or
others, or legal entities, "which directly or indirectly leads to
losses on the part of the state".

Akbar's "shameful" action, which "wounded the hearts of the
public" included the following, Abdurrahman said:
o The defendant did not put the project, worth Rp 40 billion (to
disburse basic needs to the poor), to tender;
o According to the rules there should have been bids from at
least three parties;
o The appointment (of a legal entity) to conduct a project worth
Rp 40 billion should not have been made verbally;
o Reports should have been made to the president (on the use of
the funds), whereas the president did not receive any such
reports;
o Appointment (of a legal entity) implementing a project worth Rp
5 billion or more should have been made with the permission of
the coordinating minister of the economy and industry;
o An instruction from the president to use nonbudgetary funds
should have been based on a written presidential instruction.

Abdurrahman added that the Development Finance Comptroller
(BPKP) had, on March 23 and March 31, 1999, reminded Bulog to
stop the receipt and issuance of nonbudgetary funds. "If this had
been heeded the entire case might have been avoided," he said.

In the end the collection of funds that were not in line with
existing rules "burdened the people," Abdurrahman said.

The defendant, he continued, "cannot rely on the excuse that
it was an emergency" because he failed to prove that the use of
nonbudgetary Bulog funds was the only way to help alleviate the
burden on the poor at that time.

The Supreme Court's verdict, based on the fact that
nonbudgetary Bulog funds were not among those covered in a 1994
presidential decree on project funds, "should be seen in the
context that, in accordance with good governance, the spirit and
meaning of that presidential decree could have served as a
guideline."

While the justice said the defense had implied that Akbar had
acted in line with the presidential decree, "what happened was
that the defendant engaged in actions that violated decency ...
(and) prudence in line with the principles of good governance,
that there should not be any abuse of power."

Akbar's legal journey

Feb, 10, 1999: President B.J. Habibie asks Minister/State
Secretary Akbar Tandjung, during a cabinet meeting, to channel Rp
40 billion in funds belonging to the State Logistics Agency
(Bulog) to a food for the poor program.

Oct. 11, 2001: Akbar admits he knew about the money and says it
was channeled directly to the Raudatul Jannah foundation led by
Dadang Sukandar, who subsequently named Winfried Simatupang as
contractor of the charity program. The program never
materialized.

Jan. 7, 2002: The Attorney General's Office (AGO) names Akbar a
suspect in the scandal.

March, 7, 2002: Akbar is detained in a cell at the AGO.

March, 25, 2002: The Central Jakarta District Court begins the
trials of Akbar, Dadang and Winfried.

April, 5, 2002: Akbar is released from his cell.

Sept. 4, 2002: The court convicts Akbar and sentences him to
three years in jail.

Jan, 17, 2003: The Jakarta High Court upholds the lower court's
verdict on Akbar.

March, 20, 2003: Akbar files an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Feb, 12, 2004: The Supreme Court rules in favor of Akbar and
acquits him on all charges, but upholds sentences on Dadang and
Winfried.