Court lacks criminal judges for Akbar's appeal

Court lacks criminal judges for Akbar's appeal

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The notoriously inadequate legal system in Indonesia will likely
see irregularities in the hearing of the appeal of Akbar
Tandjung, the incumbent Speaker of the House of Representatives,
considering the composition of the panel of judges.

The panel of judges will be led by Paulus Effendy Lotulung,
the Supreme Court director for the supervision of the State
Administrative Court. The members are Laica Marzuki, a former law
professor who lectures on state administrative affairs; Parman
Suparman, a career judge who focuses on criminal cases; Arbijoto,
a career judge; and Muchsin, a judge-cum-academician.

The composition has raised questions whether the Supreme Court
can deliver an independent verdict.

Akbar has been sentenced to three years in prison by two lower
courts for embezzling Rp 40 billion (US$4.9 million) in State
Logistics Agency (Bulog) funds in 1999 while he served as cabinet
secretary under the administration of former President B.J.
Habibie. He filed an appeal in April.

The money was believed to be channeled into the Golkar Party
for the 1999 election.

Observers doubt that the judges, who have almost no experience
in hearing criminal cases, could present competent arguments in
their upcoming verdict.

"The suspicion is baseless, I chose them carefully," said
Chief Justice Bagir Manan over the weekend in response to
observers comments.

He said all judges at the Supreme Court were capable of
hearing criminal cases. The court does not have enough judges to
hear appeal cases so a judge who specialized in civil cases must
also hear criminal cases.

Bagir said that "a case that attracts public attention must be
led by the head of the Supreme Court."

"I am supposed to lead the panel of judges (in hearing Akbar's
case), but I choose not to as I believe that people would
consider me a Golkar Party supporter although that is not so. I
don't care for political parties," he remarked.

Bagir was once under the supervision of former minister of
justice and human rights Oetojo Oesman, who was recently elected
as chairman of Golkar Party's special committee for next year's
general election.

He said that he also decided not to appoint Marianna Sutadi,
the Supreme Court director for the supervision of judges, to the
panel because her husband was a former Golkar leader.

German Hoediarto, the director for the supervision of the
military courts, was also excluded from the panel of judges as
"it would spark further allegations", Bagir said.

The military was a strong supporter of the New Order regime,
during which the Golkar Party ruled the country.

Bagir denied that he had given specific instructions to the
panel of judges in hearing Akbar's case.

Justice Laica Marzuki confirmed that he had not received any
instructions from Bagir.

"Even if I did receive instructions, I wouldn't care," he told
reporters at his office over the weekend.

However, he admitted that the "judges were under pressure".

"Many people have contacted me. Some of them have asked me to
rule in favor of Akbar, while others want me to do the opposite,"
Laica said.

Sources at the Supreme Court said that several leading figures
from major political parties, including the Golkar Party and the
Indonesian Democratic Party for Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), have
visited the court prior to the appeal.

Bagir called on the people to let the panel of judges hear the
case properly in a bid to produce a fair verdict.

"I have asked them to prioritize this case," he said.

The verdict, which is expected to be issued in two months, is
regarded as critical as the House will use it to decide Akbar's
status in the legislative body.

There has been a motion from some legislators demanding a
disciplinary committee which will examine the moral
appropriateness of Akbar to lead the House after his conviction.

If Akbar's conviction is upheld by the Supreme Court, many
predict that his political career will be over. Under Indonesian
law, a legal battle stops at the Supreme Court, while the verdict
must be executed as soon as it is announced.