Central Jakarta Court Respects Lawyers' Report Against Nadiem's Advocates to Peradi

The Central Jakarta District Court (PN Jakpus) has stated it respects the complaint filed by two of Nadiem Anwar Makarim’s advocates, Dodi Abdul Kadir and Ari Yusuf Amir, to the Honour Council of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradi). Court spokesperson Muhammad Firman Akbar said that filing such a report is the right of every citizen and community institution to submit complaints through available channels according to applicable regulations. “The allegation of a violation of the Advocates’ Code of Ethics is entirely the authority of the advocate organisation’s honour council to examine and decide,” Firman told journalists in Jakarta on Tuesday. He added that the authority to revoke a licence or impose sanctions, including dismissal, also rests with the organisation’s honour council in accordance with applicable provisions and is not the court’s authority. Firman noted that the presiding judge’s authority to maintain order in the courtroom only applies during the trial, and the trial for Nadiem’s case has concluded with the reading of the verdict. He stressed that the order and honour of the trial were maintained according to procedural law, and all events in the trial are recorded in the official minutes. As the main case is still within the appeal period and has not yet obtained permanent legal force, the court considers it inappropriate to comment on the substance of the case in public, in order to maintain the honour of the judicial process and the presumption of innocence. “The Central Jakarta District Court is committed to continuously maintaining independence, impartiality, and a mutually respectful relationship among fellow law enforcers, namely judges, prosecutors, and advocates, within the framework of dignified law enforcement,” he asserted. The advocates were reported by the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Civil Society Network (Jamsaki) on Thursday (2/7). The report was triggered by remarks made by the legal team after the verdict hearing for the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebooks, which implicated Nadiem, at the Corruption Court in Central Jakarta on Tuesday (30/6). At the time, the legal team shouted a question at the panel of judges as they left the courtroom, asking, “Why the rush, are you afraid, Your Honour?” Consequently, Jamsaki urged Peradi to take firm action and revoke the two lawyers’ practising licences if they are proven to have violated the Advocates’ Code of Ethics. In the alleged corruption case concerning the education digitalisation programme involving the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology for the 2019–2022 period, Nadiem was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of corruption. In addition to the prison sentence, the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology for the 2019–2024 period was also fined Rp1 billion, subsidiary to 190 days imprisonment, and ordered to pay restitution of Rp809.59 billion, subsidiary to five years imprisonment. The restitution was imposed after Nadiem was proven to have received Rp809.59 billion originating from PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa (PT AKAB) through PT Gojek Indonesia. A majority of PT AKAB’s funds came from a Google investment worth USD 786.99 million. In this case, Nadiem was proven to have abused his authority, causing state losses of Rp1.56 trillion. The corruption was allegedly carried out, among other things, by procuring information and communication technology-based learning facilities in the form of Chromebook laptops and CDM for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 fiscal years, which did not comply with procurement planning and principles. The actions of the technology company founder were declared to have been carried out together with three other defendants who were sentenced in separate trials, namely Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, Mulyatsyah, and Sri Wahyuningsih, as well as Jurist Tan, who remains at large. Nadiem was thus proven to have violated criminal provisions stipulated in Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.