Appeal Hearing for Kerry Riza Reveals No Irregularities or State Losses

Jakarta, VIVA – The appeal hearing for the alleged corruption case involving the management of oil and refinery derivative products, with the defendant as the beneficial owner of PT Navigator Khatulistiwa, Muhamad Kerry Adrianto Riza, at the Jakarta High Court on Thursday, 7 May, revealed many new facts.

The hearing featured former Director of Marketing and Trading at PT Pertamina (Persero), Hanung Budya Yuktyanta, and former President Director of PT Pertamina Patra Niaga, Alfian Nasution, as witnesses.

During the trial, Hanung denied any pressure or intervention from Mohamad Riza Chalid regarding Pertamina’s leasing of the fuel terminal owned by PT Orbit Terminal Merak (OTM). Hanung stated that the leasing of the fuel terminal was already outlined in the company’s long-term plan (RJPP), which was approved at the general meeting of shareholders (GMS), and also included in the company’s work plan and budget (RKAP).

This affirmation was given by Hanung in response to Kerry Riza’s question about state financial losses due to deviations from pressure by Riza Chalid through Irawan Prakoso in leasing the fuel terminal, as per the Financial Audit Board (BPK) audit.

“In the BPK report, the state loss occurred due to elements of deviation; the leasing of OTM was due to pressure or a quid pro quo. Is that true or not?” Kerry asked Hanung.

“It is not true, because in Pertamina’s system, the RJPP is approved by the GMS, and the RKAP is prepared by Pertamina before being presented to the GMS, presented to the board of commissioners, and presented by the directors to the Minister of SOEs, so it then becomes a shareholder decision; there is no pressure or anything like that,” Hanung emphasised.

On that occasion, Kerry quoted Hanung’s defence note or plea read out in the hearing on 27 April 2026. In his defence note, Hanung stated that his statements regarding alleged intervention by Riza Chalid did not represent the actual situation.

It was explained that during the investigation process, the prosecutors repeatedly asked him about any intervention and quid pro quo from Riza Chalid. This caused him stress and he was forced to answer something that did not match the actual facts.

“In response to those questions, I had already answered several times that there was no such pressure and quid pro quo, but because I was pressed with those questions repeatedly and at that time, my psychological condition was very stressed, pressured, and my physical condition was extremely fatigued, I was forced to give an answer that did not represent the actual situation,” said Kerry, quoting Hanung’s defence note.