Bulwark of justice?

Bulwark of justice?

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday to acquit Akbar Tandjung
of all charges of corruption, thereby overturning two earlier
lower court verdicts sentencing the House of Representatives
speaker to three years in prison, is certain to have serious
consequences for this country for a long time to come.

In formulating its decision, the Supreme Court said that in
the 1999 corruption case, the defendant could not be held
responsible for the action of others involved in the embezzlement
of Rp 40 billion in public money, as he was only carrying out the
instructions of his superior at the time, president B.J. Habibie.

Considering a statement made last month by Supreme Court Chief
Justice Bagir Manan to the effect that it was the court's duty
"only to examine whether the lower courts had applied the law
correctly," yesterday's outcome should not have come entirely as
a surprise. From the start, the trial of Akbar in this high-
profile corruption case involving the misuse of public funds to
the tune of Rp 40 billion, has been one of the quirkiest in
Indonesia's judicial history, involving top-ranking public
officials.

To briefly summarize the case: It all began when president
B.J. Habibie, in a meeting on Feb. 10, 1999, ordered Bulog (the
State Logistics Agency) to disburse Rp 40 billion from its
nonbudgetary funds, supposedly to relieve the suffering of the
poor under a "social safety net" program. Reportedly attending
the meeting were Akbar Tandjung in his then capacity as minister/
state secretary, Bulog head Rahardi Ramlan and coordinating
minister for people's welfare Haryono Suyono. It was agreed to
entrust Akbar to oversee the disbursement of the money and to
hand it over to three ministers in president Habibie's cabinet,
namely coordinating minister for people's welfare Haryono Suyono,
cooperatives minister Adi Sasono and minister of social welfare
Joestika Baharsjah.

The first installment, totaling Rp 20 billion, divided equally
between two checks and signed by Bulog deputy financial chief
Ahmad Ruskandar, was issued on March 2, 1999, and was reportedly
given by Ruskandar to Akbar, who in turn handed the checks to
Fadel Muhammad and M.S. Hidayat, Golkar Party treasurer and
deputy treasurer respectively. On April 20, at Akbar's request,
Ruskandar issued eight more checks for a total of Rp 20 billion,
which the latter reportedly handed to Golkar functionaries Fadel
Muhammad, M.S. Hidayat, Enggartiasto Lukito, Setya Novanto and
Golkar chairman Mahadi Sinambela. How Golkar functionaries came
to be involved in the scheme was never satisfactorily explained.

The case might never have come to light but for the dramatic
ouster of president Soeharto, and the regime change that occurred
on Oct. 20, 1999, when Habibie, the new president in transition
replacing Soeharto, was outvoted in presidential elections in the
People's Consultative Assembly and Abdurrahman Wahid was elected
the nation's new president. To cut a long story short, in
subsequent court hearings Akbar at first denied ever having
touched the checks, but later acknowledged having accepted them
and having handed the checks to Raudatul Jannah, a private
foundation led by Dadang Ruskandar. In court, Akbar claimed the
foundation had been recommended by Haryono Suyono -- a claim
which the latter denied.

Although Rp 32.5 billion of the money was eventually returned
to the state by Winfried Simatupang, a businessman implicated in
the case together with Akbar and Raudatul Jannah chairman
Ruskandar, the Central Jakarta District Court, in its verdict on
Sept. 4, 2002, found the House of Representatives speaker guilty
of corruption as charged and sentenced him to three years'
imprisonment, to be served pending a final decision from the
highest court of appeal.

At this point, a number of matters are worth noting. First,
technical considerations aside, plain common sense would dictate
that Akbar, being the person entrusted with the disbursement of
the money, should bear the responsibility for its proper
allocation -- that is, for the purpose of poverty alleviation, in
accordance with the presidential instruction. In other words,
yesterday's Supreme Court decision runs against the public's
sense of justice, all the more so because the Supreme Court
upheld the previous lower court rulings on two of Akbar's
codefendants in the case, Winfried Simatupang and Dadang
Sukandar, albeit with reduced terms. Considering that the Supreme
Court ruling runs against two earlier court decisions,
yesterday's verdict brings into question the quality of the
entire judicial system in the eyes of the public and could
seriously impair public trust in the judiciary as a whole -- not
to mention the wider political implications. Many Indonesians
also see it as a serious setback in the fight against corruption,
especially that within the country's notoriously corrupt
judiciary.

In any case, and for whatever it is worth, the country's
highest legal authority has spoken: The case is closed. The
logical consequence for Indonesians to ponder now is to prepare
themselves for the social, political and possible economic
repercussions that observers feel the ruling is certain to bring.