Buloggate II turns bizarre

The return to state investigators of Rp 32.5 billion of a total of Rp 40 billion in public money allegedly misused by top figures of the Golkar Party in the run-up to the 1999 general election has given the case a turn that can only be regarded as bizarre in the extreme.

On Saturday, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office in Jakarta, Barman Zahir, revealed to the media that the money had been returned by Winfried Simatupang, a contractor hired by the then Golkar-dominated government of president B.J. Habibie to disburse food packages to the poor. The money, he said, was to be paid back to the state in installments, the first having been made last week and the final one to be made before the end of this month.

The case culminated last week with the detention of House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung, who is concurrently chairman of the Golkar Party, as a suspect in the case after a third session of questioning by state attorneys. To put it all in a proper context, it should be noted that in 1999 Akbar was minister/state secretary and as such was reportedly ordered by then president B.J. Habibie to get the money from the State Logistics Agency (Bulog) and use it to buy food for distribution to the poor.

Akbar complied, but initially denied before investigators that he had personally received the money, saying that the funds had been accepted by Dadang Ruskandar, then deputy chief of Bulog, on behalf of the Raudlatul Jannah Foundation, a body headed by Ruskandar, for relief operations. He also said that he had reported the foundation as recipient of the money to three ministers in president Habibie's Cabinet, minister of industry and trade Rahardi Ramlan (who was then head of Bulog and is now also in detention), coordinating minister for population Haryono Suyono and justice minister Muladi. All three, however, denied any knowledge of the foundation.

Akbar's testimony regarding acceptance of the money was also denied by Rahardi Ramlan's deputy at Bulog, Dadang Ruskandar, compelling Akbar to admit that he had personally received the money in the form of three checks in his office. Further evidence later revealed that the checks were accepted by Golkar Party treasurers Muhammad S. Hidayat and Fadel Muhammad.

Even at this point it can be seen that Akbar's testimony is riddled with holes. However, how does one explain what followed next? Akbar was placed in detention and the Golkar Party threatened to put pressure on the process by mobilizing its supporters and withdrawing its ministers from the Cabinet. In the House of Representatives, Golkar members stated their determination to oppose to the end the proposed formation of a special legislative commission to look into the affair.

Then, out of the blue, more than two months after Akbar had been named a corruption suspect, four days after he had been put in detention and weeks after investigators had heard all the allegations and denials, came Saturday's revelation by the Attorney General's Office that the money was being returned in stages. What is one to make of so bizarre a turn of events?

So far, it seems that the Buloggate II case has managed to raise more questions than it has answered. For instance, where has this latest money come from? During the investigations in the past few weeks both Winfried and Dadang were adamant that the Bulog money had been spent. Not a single rupiah was left and both had even had to use some of their own money to pay for the food purchase.

Last week, however, Winfried claimed that he had discovered to his surprise, "The money is still in the bank, not all was spent." This not only refutes his earlier testimony, it also raises the question as to why the investigators have never taken the trouble of looking into the bank accounts of corruption suspects, or even trying to do so. To Winfried, the investigators must seem like gullible little children.

There is no shortage of questions that need to be seriously answered in this bizarre case. However, suffice it is to say that this latest turn of developments makes it even more urgent than ever for our state investigators to look into every aspect of the case. It is important for the public to know precisely where the money came from, who provided it and for what purpose and why the Attorney General's Office found it necessary to wait a whole week before announcing the return of the funds to the public.

The fact that the money has been returned, and in so irregular a fashion and under such a questionable pretext, must not stand in the way of justice being done. If this nation and its leaders are sincere in their stated determination to uphold the supremacy of the law in this country, no stone should be left unturned for corruptors to escape justice.