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.