Clamor over detention of House Speaker Akbar

Clamor over detention of House Speaker Akbar

Todung Mulya Lubis, Lawyer, Jakarta

Why was Akbar Tandjung, the legislature Speaker, detained by
the Attorney General in relation to the Bulog scandal?

It was argued that Akbar's respected position would lead him
to be cooperative in the entire investigation process, and
indeed, he repeatedly stated that he would submit to the legal
process, and was ready to go to the Attorney General's office
when needed.

It would not be wrong to assume, based on Akbar's statements,
that the investigation into his case would proceed smoothly. So
what is the urgency of Akbar's detention? These questions led to
many attempts at analysis -- that the detention was a result of
politics, as if all this were related to a power struggle aimed
to destroying Golkar's chances in the looming 2004 elections.

That Buloggate II is loaded with politics cannot be denied.
The fact that a figure named Akbar Tandjung is alleged to have
abused nonbudgetary funds controlled by the State Logistics
Agency (Bulog) in itself is political because Akbar is the
Speaker of the House of Representatives (DPR), Golkar chairman
and a former high-ranking New Order official.

If it is proven that the funds were indeed used by Golkar in
the past elections, it would be the largest case of "money
politics" ever to have reached the court.

In such cases it is impossible to draw a line between politics
and the law, as the case would have far-reaching political
implications for the nation's political life.

The country's political map is undergoing changes that will,
in turn, affect the political balance of the future.

The process of law, including Akbar's detention, need not be
seen as an oddity. The detention of a suspect in a corruption
case is quite usual. Signs of Akbar's detention were clear
following the detention of Rahardi Ramelan, the former Bulog
chairman who channeled the nonbudgetary funds to Akbar when he
was state secretary.

So it would have been impossible not to detain Akbar after
Rahardi was detained. If Akbar were not detained many would have
concluded that law enforcers were being discriminatory and were
scared of high-ranking officials. The credibility of the Attorney
General's office would have deteriorated even further.

Is there really reason to believe that Akbar will escape or
destroy evidence or obstruct investigation? Again there are many
reasons to believe that Akbar would be cooperative. Yet the
reasons for his detention are also solid, and the prosecutors
must therefore complete investigations and send the dossiers to
court.

The public is entitled to justice for the abuse of the funds.
And if Akbar thinks his detention violates the due process of
law, the pretrial process must immediately begin. This moment
will then be a test of whether Akbar's detention has strong legal
grounds, or whether it was instead driven by the influence of
those in power.

It is ironic that the politicizing over Akbar's detention has
been displayed by so many parties. Golkar sent many of its
legislators to the Attorney General to pressure the office. They
reportedly made a petition against the detention by Golkar
members, and the Attorney General may be summoned by the DPR for
clarification. Earlier a number of politicians from the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) went to
the Attorney General's office to pressure it into detaining
Akbar.

The politicizing of the issue was too blatant, and we have
witnessed the lack of respect the politicians have toward the
independence of the legal process.

Politicians outside Golkar also joined the bandwagon on
Akbar's detention, thus it is not impossible that the Attorney
General's Office might feel a little apprehensive.

It was this politicizing that may have changed the place of
detention, initially planned for Salemba prison. The Attorney
General clearly violated the principle of equality before the
law. The Criminal Code states that detention by the police or at
the Attorney General's office is only allowed if the country does
not have a state penitentiary.

Some might think this is a trivial matter but it hurts not
only Rahardi, also a former high-ranking official, but also the
principle of legal supremacy, which should not be discriminatory.

The Attorney General may detain a person for 20 days during
investigation, and, if necessary, this detention may be prolonged
to a maximum of 40 days. If the Attorney General's Office works
extra hard it should be able to prepare the files and ask the
court for a trial.

The case will no doubt be a very important one, as this would
be the first time that a senior politician, DPR Speaker and
Golkar chairman, is tried for corruption. The case is also
important politically, because if it were proved that the
nonbudgetary funds were used by Golkar, then based on Law 2/1999
on political parties, Golkar could be dissolved and banned from
participating in the 2004 elections. We would then witness a
lawsuit against Golkar's dissolution at the Supreme Court.

Golkar people should not be emotional over Akbar's detention,
but should instead start thinking about an effective strategy to
avoid the party's downfall -- against the possible evidence of
its involvement in money politics.