Akbar's acquittal weakens anti-graft drive: Experts

Tiarma Siboro and M. Taufiqurrahman, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The acquittal of Golkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung will make it difficult to put corrupt officials or former officials behind bars, a legal expert says.

Rudy Satrio of the University of Indonesia said here on Friday that the exoneration of Akbar on Thursday would deal a deadly blow to the country's campaign against corruption.

"I am worried about the trial of hundreds of other corruption defendants because Akbar's case can be taken as a precedent," Rudy said.

Akbar, considered to be one of the strongest contenders in the upcoming presidential elections, had been sentenced to three years in jail for corruption involving Rp 40 billion (US$4.8 million) in State Logistics Agency (Bulog) funds when he was minister/state secretary in 1999.

However, the Supreme Court acquitted him on Thursday, arguing that Akbar was merely following the instructions of his superior, former president B.J. Habibie.

According to Rudy, Akbar's acquittal contained several legal loopholes which could be exploited by suspected corrupters.

The first is the use of Article 1 of Corruption Eradication Law No. 3/1974, which deals with power abuse (Article 1a) and law violation (Article 1b).

"The two elements deal with different issues and do not automatically mean that if one element is not violated, then the other is not violated either," Rudy said.

In the verdict on Akbar, the Supreme Court ruled that he had not been proven to have abused his power, and thus violation of the law had not occurred.

The second loophole, according to Rudy, was the use of Article 51 of the Criminal Code, which says that someone cannot be charged with a crime if he or she is merely carrying out the instructions of his or her superior.

"This article has become a legal flaw, enabling someone to hide behind state policies without the obligation to be accountable for what they have done," Rudy said.

Another flaw in the verdict was the use of emergency-situation terminology that was not clearly defined.

"In their verdict, the judges have not said anything about an emergency situation, but it came up in the dissenting opinion by judge Abdurrahman Saleh," he said.

Rudy suggested that the public carry out an examination of the verdict and submit the result to the Supreme Court for its consideration.

Rudy, however, stressed that any examination would amount only to "moral pressure" on the Supreme Court because it was not covered in any extant legislation.

The Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) denounced the acquittal, saying it was a betrayal of the reform agenda.

PBHI secretary-general Johnson Panjaitan said that the acquittal would only strengthen public distrust in the judiciary.

Legal practitioner Frans Hendra Winarta also feared that the Akbar case could be taken as a reference for other corruption cases.

"If this were to happen, the defendants in other corruption cases could be exonerated. The fate of corruption cases will be the same as that in human rights abuse cases, in which only low- ranking officials or common people are sent to jail," he told The Jakarta Post.

Meanwhile, Amiruddin Zakaria, the judge who convicted Akbar of corruption in 2002, said on Friday that he was gravely disappointed at the decision to overturn his earlier verdict and planned to resign from his current post.

"What I did at the lower court was not respected and I am ready to resign over it," he told the Post in a telephone interview.

Amiruddin said the Supreme Court was not consistent in dealing with Akbar's case. "I was reprimanded by the Supreme Court for my decision to suspend Akbar's detention, but now they have freed him instead," he said.

He said that he would lodge a resignation letter with the head of the Kendari High Court, Southeast Sulawesi, sometime next week.