BPKP Expert: Calculation of State Losses in Chromebook Case Based on Evidence

Auditor from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), Dedy Nurmawan, claimed he never pressured the principal suppliers during clarifications in the process of calculating state losses in the corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebook laptops. Dedy stated that the calculation process was based on evidence, not assumptions.

This was conveyed by Dedy Nurmawan when presented by the prosecutor as an expert witness in the trial of the alleged corruption case regarding the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) at the Jakarta Corruption Court, on Monday (13/4/2026). The defendant is former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Anwar Makarim.

“Did you pressure the principal suppliers during your clarifications? Did you force them? Because some of them said they were sleepy, not focused, and even one principal supplier said they suffered losses in this procurement,” asked the prosecutor.

Dedy then provided an explanation. Dedy said his team always inquired about the availability and health of the principal suppliers before conducting clarifications.

“Regarding the clarifications, our standard before clarification is to mandatorily ask about their availability. Ask about their health, whether they are willing or healthy enough for the clarification to proceed, that’s one,” said Dedy.

Dedy emphasised that he never applied pressure or intimidation. He said the clarification process was conducted using an approach to build trust with the respondents.

“Secondly, we never used any pressure or intimidation like that. Because in our method for clarifications, it’s about approaching to build rapport, so to speak, building trust with our respondents so they can state the truth,” he said.

Dedy stated that his team also provided ample opportunities to the principal suppliers during the clarification process. He acknowledged that calculating the loss figures was not an easy task.

“Then we also give the widest possible opportunities during clarifications, especially with the principals because it relates to calculating the numbers. We understand and realise it’s not easy, it can’t be done in one go. So we give opportunities, ‘oh please, sir, if you can’t now’. Some have more competent people in the office, the data is in the office, and so on, we give them time,” said Dedy.

“Then later they contact us back to submit the data and sign the clarification minutes like that. It can be submitted via WhatsApp or official email and so on. So we give them the widest opportunities to compile the figures, without any pressure at all, nothing like that,” he added.

The prosecutor then asked whether the calculation of state financial losses in this case was real and certain. The prosecutor inquired about the validity of the procedures and formal aspects of the loss calculation.

“So the audit that I asked you about earlier regarding several deviations, several of these. Can you confirm, from the procedural side, the formal validity, as well as from the report to the attachments that form a unified whole in the audit. That the state financial loss audit is indeed real and certain, not assumptions or just suspicions that you reported?” asked the prosecutor.

Dedy then provided an explanation. Dedy affirmed that the conclusions, including the method of calculating the losses in this case, were carried out based on evidence, not assumptions.

“So all conclusions, including the calculation method we used to compute, are based on evidence we obtained. So an auditor must not make assumptions, must not use feelings. It must be based on evidence,” he said.

“So all our conclusions, including the compilation of fair prices, all have supporting data. All have clarification evidence of calculations from the principals, complete there, including the working papers,” answered Dedy.

Dedy stated that the calculation of state financial losses in this case is already real and certain. He said the data used as the basis was not fabricated, but from competent sources.

“So the losses are real and certain, yes, they are real and certain, because we also obtained data from the Ministry of Finance regarding the disbursements for this procurement, including the allocation of large special allocation funds, how much, the amount, all that is not made up by us but based on evidence we obtained from competent sources,” said Dedy.

In this case, Nadiem is charged with corruption related to the procurement of Chromebook laptops during his tenure as Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology. The project is said to have caused state losses of Rp 2.1 trillion.

Nadiem has filed an exception. The judge rejected the exception and requested the trial to proceed to the proof stage.