Another shock

Only days after the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) published its findings about organized corruption in our judicial system, the nation was shocked by the court's handling of House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung. The source of this shock was the four-year jail term sought by prosecutors for Akbar, who is on trial for corruption.

While it is not our intention to interfere in an ongoing court case, the manner in which Akbar's trial has been conducted leaves so many unanswered questions that the credibility of the trial itself could be called into question.

That state prosecutors requested the minimum sentence allowed under the corruption law reflects the lack of solid evidence presented to the court. But that is precisely the issue the public has raised in the past.

We have seen the same thing at the trial of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, the son of former president Soeharto, who is being tried for the murder of a Supreme Court justice, the illegal possession of firearms and flight from justice.

Many questions surrounding the Rp 40 billion belonging to the State Logistics Agency (Bulog), particularly about where the money went, were not raised by the prosecutors or the judges during Akbar's trial.

The prosecutors recognized that Akbar changed his story about how the Bulog money had been handled numerous times, but unfortunately such public lies, even if told by an elected official to the highest state institution, do not constitute a crime that can be prosecuted in our courts.

The prosecutors instead limited their investigation of Akbar into his alleged failure to properly account for the Rp 40 billion. They were not so much interested in the allegation that the charity foundation named in the Bulog case had been created simply for Akbar's defense. They did not even explore the allegation that the Bulog money had gone to finance the 1999 election campaign of Akbar's Golkar Party, or that other political parties also benefited from that money.

The Buloggate II case once again exposed not only the lack of competence on the part of the people who are supposed to administer and enforce the law, but also the limitations of our legal system in dealing with political crimes.

This case is another illustration of people in high office abusing their power, but unfortunately this is not a criminal offense that can be prosecuted in our courts.

All the more reason why we feel the House of Representatives made a grave error last month when it voted down a motion to open an inquiry of its own into Akbar and the Bulog money. The House investigation would have run parallel to the current legal proceedings against Akbar.

Special House inquiries are better equipped to deal with such abuses of power. Witness the expediency with which the House's investigation led to the impeachment of president Abdurrahman Wahid last year.

Akbar Tandjung's case illustrates once again that the legal process alone is unlikely to deliver the kind of justice this country needs in punishing people who abuse their power.