Court's sentence for Akbar too lenient: Analysts

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.