Chromebook Case: When Education Policy Ends Up in Court
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced Indonesian schools to shift to remote learning, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Kemendikbudristek) launched the Digitalisation of Education Programme. One of its key components was the procurement of Chromebook laptops for schools across various regions, aimed at expanding technological access, strengthening digital learning, and accelerating national education transformation.
However, this policy, born of good intentions, ultimately became one of the largest corruption scandals in Indonesia’s education sector. The Attorney General’s Office found indications of irregularities in the procurement process, which took place between 2019 and 2022, and elevated the case to the investigation stage. The legal process eventually ensnared former Minister Nadiem Makarim as a defendant.
The trial concluded at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, where the panel of judges handed down a 10-year prison sentence to Nadiem Makarim, along with a fine of IDR 1 billion, subsidiary to 190 days of confinement, and a restitution payment of IDR 809.59 billion, subsidiary to five years’ imprisonment. This sentence was significantly lighter than the prosecutors’ demand of 18 years and a restitution of approximately IDR 5.6 trillion, based on state losses calculated at IDR 2.18 trillion. It is crucial to note that this is a first-instance verdict; Nadiem has rejected the ruling and will pursue an appeal, meaning the case has not yet attained permanent legal force (inkracht). The principle of presumption of innocence remains relevant until the appeals process is exhausted.
Public reaction to the case has been deeply divided, with a study categorising opinions into four main groups. The first supports firm law enforcement, arguing that any suspected misuse of state funds must be prosecuted without exception. The second emphasises the presumption of innocence, cautioning that moral judgement should not precede a final and binding court decision. A third group focuses on policy governance, questioning the effectiveness and suitability of the Chromebook programme, particularly for schools in areas with limited internet infrastructure. The fourth group sees the scandal as a catalyst for broader reform of public procurement systems, advocating for greater transparency and public oversight.
Beyond the formal legal proceedings, a normative legal study has analysed the case through the lens of Islamic ethics, specifically the Maqashid Shariah principle of Hifz al-Mal (protection of wealth). This perspective frames the state budget as a public trust (amanah) that must be managed with integrity. If the alleged misuse of funds is legally proven, it would constitute a violation of Hifz al-Mal. The study finds a convergence between positive law and Islamic ethics, as both prioritise the protection of public finances, though they approach the matter from different angles: one through formal criminal proof and the other through moral accountability. The case ultimately serves as a stark lesson that even well-intentioned public policies must be governed by rigorous transparency and accountability.