All Exceptions from Defendants in Bank Branch Head Murder Case Rejected

Jakarta, VIVA - All objections (exceptions) submitted by the defendants and their legal advisors in the case of the alleged murder of the branch head (kacab) of a state-owned bank in Cempaka Putih, Mohamad Ilham Pradipta (37), have been rejected by the Panel of Judges at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta. “It is hereby decided to declare the rejection of the objections raised by the defendants and the defendants’ legal advisors,” stated Presiding Judge Colonel Chk Fredy Ferdian Isnartanto during the reading of the interlocutory decision at the Military Court II-08 Jakarta, Cakung, East Jakarta, on Wednesday, 15 April 2026. In its decision, the panel of judges stated that the objections submitted are unacceptable and lack legal basis. The panel also confirmed that the Military Court II-08 Jakarta has the authority to hear the case. Consequently, the trial process will proceed to the next stage. The case costs are temporarily suspended until the final decision is issued. “It is declared that the Military Court II-08 Jakarta is authorised to hear the case of the defendants, the examination of the case shall continue, and the case costs are suspended until the final decision,” he said. In its legal considerations, the panel of judges thoroughly reviewed various points of the objections raised by the legal advisors. One key issue highlighted was the request to separate the case files of the defendants (splitting). The panel of judges opined that combining the case files remains relevant and appropriate. This is because all the acts charged against the defendants are deemed to constitute a single chain of criminal events occurring at the same time. Although each defendant has a different role, the panel assessed that these differences will be clearly revealed during the proof process in the trial through the examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the panel emphasised that the authority to determine whether a case is combined or separated lies entirely with the Military Prosecutor as the drafter of the indictment. In fact, combining the cases is seen as better reflecting the principles of swift, simple, and low-cost justice, while also providing legal certainty for all parties. Additionally, the panel of judges rejected the legal advisors’ argument that the Military Prosecutor’s indictment was not prepared meticulously, clearly, and completely.