Attorney General's Office Responds to Chromebook Defendant Ibam's Claim of Being Intimidated by Investigators
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has responded to the claims made by defendant Ibrahim Arief, alias Ibam, in the Chromebook corruption case, who alleged he was intimidated by investigators.
Anang Supriatna, Head of the AGO’s Legal Information Centre, suggested that Ibam report the alleged intimidation to the AGO’s oversight division.
He claimed that if intimidation is proven, action will be taken in accordance with applicable rules and provisions.
“Please go ahead and prove what kind of intimidation it was and report it if there is indeed intimidation,” he told reporters on Friday (24/4).
“As far as that goes, we assure you that the investigators have carried out law enforcement in accordance with the provisions,” he added.
Regarding Ibam’s claim that his name was included in the Procurement Supervisor Decree (SK) without his knowledge, Anang emphasised that investigators had found strong evidence during the investigation of the case.
Therefore, he views Ibam’s claims as merely the defendant’s right to defend himself. Anang also leaves the decision entirely to the Panel of Judges.
On the other hand, he asked that all defences presented by the defendant’s side be conveyed through the defence mechanism in the plea agenda. This is because the trial is still ongoing.
“We have presented based on the evidence available in the trial and it has been revealed. The person in question has the right to deny or convince, please do so as long as it will later be considered by the panel of judges,” he said.
Previously, the legal team for defendant Ibrahim Arief (Ibam) highlighted several irregularities in the indictment by the public prosecutors (JPU) in the alleged Chromebook procurement corruption case. The JPU’s demands were deemed to exceed the charges.
Ibam’s lawyer, Boy Bondjol, stated that the demands not only burden his client but are also irregular because they exceed the maximum prison sentence commonly imposed in judicial practice.
“This is very surprising because the demand against our client is much higher compared to other defendants who clearly received fund flows from this procurement,” said Boy, during a press conference in Cikini, Central Jakarta, on Tuesday (21/4).
Ibam’s legal team views there to be several fundamental issues in the construction of those demands. One of them is the emergence of the Rp16 billion figure as the basis for the enrichment charge, which was said never to have been included in the indictment letter.