Akbar's acquittal weakens anti-graft drive: Experts

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.