Court Explains Judge's Decision to Immediately Close Nadiem's Sentencing Hearing

The Central Jakarta District Court has explained the reason the panel of judges immediately closed the session and left the room after reading the verdict in the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) for the 2020-2022 fiscal year, which implicated former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim. During the hearing, after reading the verdict, Chief Judge Lilik Mulyadi stated that the complete ruling would be delivered to each party. The judge then closed the session. “It will be submitted tomorrow and can be uploaded for each party to receive. Thus, today’s ruling is complete and declared closed,” said the judge at the Corruption Court in Jakarta, Tuesday (30/6). Nadiem’s legal counsel then protested this, stating the judge had not asked for their stance on the ruling. “Your Honour, a procedure has been missed, which is giving the defendant the opportunity to state his position,” said Nadiem’s legal counsel. Central Jakarta District Court spokesperson M Firman Akbar explained that in judicial practice, there is no issue if the defendant’s legal stance is not asked. “Actually, in judicial practice, it is not a problem if it is not asked, because the defendant’s rights within the period determined by law can still be declared whether they accept, need time to consider, or appeal,” Firman told reporters. Nadiem was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of Rp1 billion in the corruption case concerning the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) for the 2020-2022 fiscal year. The judge declared Nadiem proven guilty of committing a criminal act of corruption as per the subsidiary charge. Nadiem was also given an additional penalty in the form of an obligation to pay restitution amounting to Rp809.5 billion. If the restitution is not paid, it will be replaced with a 5-year prison sentence. One member of the panel of judges, Andi Saputra, had a dissenting opinion on this verdict. Andi assessed that the prosecutor’s charges against Nadiem were not proven and believed Nadiem should have been acquitted of all charges in the Chromebook case. Nadiem stated he will appeal the ruling.