Attorney General's Office questions former Ombudsman Yeka Hendra over CPO case acquittal

Yeka attended a summons from the Special Crimes Prosecution Unit (Jampidsus) of the Attorney General’s Office on Monday, 25 May 2026, accompanied by his lawyer Haris Azhar.

Syarief Sulaeman Nahdi, Director of Investigation for the Special Crimes Prosecution Unit at the Attorney General’s Office, confirmed Yeka’s questioning today. He stated that Yeka was being examined as a witness in a corruption case concerning the management of crude palm oil (CPO).

“Confirmed (Yeka was questioned), it’s the corporate cooking oil case,” Syarief told reporters.

However, Syarief did not elaborate on the specifics of what would be investigated from Yeka. Investigators are still questioning him.

Previously, the Attorney General’s Office searched Yeka Hendra Fatika’s office and residence while he was still a Commissioner of the Indonesian Ombudsman on Monday, 9 March 2026. The search was related to a corruption case involving crude palm oil (CPO) management.

All began with the acquittal of three corporations charged by the Attorney General’s Office: Wilmar Group, Musim Mas Group, and Permata Hijau Group on 19 March 2025. Investigations revealed that the verdict had been pre-arranged, with suspects including prosecutors, judges, and lawyers involved.

The basis for the acquittal included a ruling by the State Administrative Court (PTUN) in favour of the corporations. One of the tools used was a recommendation from the Indonesian Ombudsman concluding there was ‘maladministration’ in the policy on crude palm oil (CPO) exports.

Prosecutors believe there was ‘manipulation’ behind the Ombudsman’s recommendation, which prompted the search of a Commissioner’s office and residence over suspected involvement in the manipulation.

“Confirmed, one of the reasons (regarding the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the PTUN lawsuit),” said Attorney General’s Office Public Information Chief (Kapuspenkum) Anang Supriatna on 9 March when asked if the search was linked to the Ombudsman’s recommendation during the corporations’ PTUN lawsuit.

According to Anang, the Ombudsman Commissioner’s actions are suspected of obstructing prosecutors’ investigations, leading to the corporations temporarily evading legal consequences.

“He is charged under Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law for obstructing investigations and prosecution in the previous cooking oil case, the ‘onslag’ verdict,” Anang explained.