Court's sentence for Akbar too lenient: Analysts

Kurniawan Hari and Moch. N. Kurniawan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Several legal analysts criticized the three-year jail sentence handed to House Speaker Akbar Tandjung as being too lenient, saying that the Supreme Court should hand him a heavier sentence "to satisfy the public's sense of justice".

Many other legal experts also called on the judiciary, mainly the high court and the Supreme Court, to be more transparent when handling cases, especially those that involve public figures and state officials.

Benny K. Harman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (YLBHI) and Achmad Ali of the Hasanuddin University said the high court should prosecute Akbar and the other two defendants, Winfried Simatupang and Dadang Sukandar, to the full extent of the law since the misappropriation of Rp 40 billion (4.5 million) in Bulog funds is an exceptional crime.

"Corruptors whose wrongdoings have brought suffering to the people should be given harsh punishment in an attempt to fight the rampant corruption. If they are public servants they deserve the maximum penalty," Benny told The Jakarta Post by telephone.

He said the three-year jail sentence handed down to Akbar was too lenient and imbalanced because of his role in the case. "Judges should impose sentences of at least 15 years imprisonment and the verdicts should be started immediately in order to administer shock therapy to other corruptors," he said.

The high court turned down Akbar's appeal and upheld the Central Jakarta District Court's Sept. 2002 decision, reasoning that Akbar, in his capacity as then state secretary/Cabinet minister, "did not supervise how the funds were used and whether the funds reached their target".

Separately, Achmad said the judges who tried the case did not consider people's reaction to the case.

"We hope the Supreme Court will handle the case immediately to stop Akbar's efforts of buying time and to listen to the people's aspirations when handling Akbar's appeal," he said.

Observers said there is little chance that Akbar will win his appeal at the Supreme Court since the district court and the high court have ruled that he is guilty. A Supreme Court decision giving him a more lenient sentence would raise the public's distrust in the judiciary.

Calls are increasing for Akbar to step down from his positions at the House of Representatives and the Golkar Party following the high court's decision last Friday. So far, at least 75 legislators from numerous factions, including Golkar, have signed a no-confidence motion against Akbar's leadership in the legislative body.

The panel of judges has not ordered Akbar's arrest or those of the other defendants for unclear reasons.

The criminal code gives judges the discretionary right not to execute the verdict for convicted state officials who are sentenced to five years imprisonment or less. However, both Winfried and Dadang are not state officials and they have not been put in jail.

Benny and Achmad also criticized the judges who tried Akbar's case for having misused their discretionary authority as they alleged they were prejudiced in their ruling.

Meanwhile, Rudi Satrio, an expert on law at the University of Indonesia and Abdul Gani, the director general of law and legislation at the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, said the high court and the Supreme Court should be transparent on how they were trying the case.

"It is not enough that the judges open the trial to the public but the public should be given access to information on the trial's schedule and the judges' reasoning for their decisions. Transparency is needed to prevent the judiciary from being corrupt," said Rudi.