Dr Tifa Questions Jokowi’s Transcript, Points to Missing Semesters 7–10

Jakarta (VIVA) — Dr Tifauzia Tyassuma, known as Dr Tifa and a defendant in a case concerning alleged fake diplomas, said that former Indonesian president Joko Widodo (Jokowi) was unable to produce his university transcript when he appeared as a witness at a hearing on Thursday (5 November 2026). According to Dr Tifa, the document presented in court was a Study Results Card (Kartu Hasil Studi, or KHS), not the transcript she had requested.

“Joko Widodo has been shown not to have a degree transcript. The evidence presented to us by the public prosecutors was a KHS, a Study Results Card, not the transcript we requested,” Dr Tifa told journalists after the hearing on Thursday evening.

Dr Tifa said she had two pieces of evidence relating to graduates of UGM’s Faculty of Forestry in the same year as the year in which Jokowi is said to have graduated.

“We have two pieces of evidence concerning forestry graduates from UGM in the same year that Joko Widodo says he graduated. Yet he was unable to produce his transcript,” she said.

Dr Tifa also highlighted what she described as other irregularities in Jokowi’s testimony. She said there was no record of him as a student in semesters seven to ten, citing the absence of KHS documents and registration records for those four semesters.

“Our evidence also shows irregularities in the chronology of Joko Widodo’s studies, with at least three semesters missing. There is no evidence that he registered as a student in semesters seven, eight, nine or ten, because there are no KHS documents or registration records. So some records are blank or missing,” she said.

Dr Tifa also questioned Jokowi’s account of writing his thesis and undertaking the Student Community Service programme (Kuliah Kerja Nyata, or KKN). She said the chronology of his academic activities appeared inconsistent: he is said to have graduated in November 1985, while the KKN programme took place between February and April that year.

She also argued that the explanation that the events took place around 45 years ago was not sufficient to account for the unclear academic chronology under scrutiny.