Elusive convict and the right to suspect a conspiracy

Elusive convict and the right to suspect a conspiracy

The process of arresting businessman Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala
Putra is yet another elusive case in bringing the high and mighty
to accountability. Criminologist Harkristuti Harkrisnowo shares
her views in an interview with The Jakarta Post. The following is
an excerpt.

Question: How do you see the slow process of the arrest of
former president Soeharto's son Tommy?

Answer: This is a reflection of the remnants of the past, that
he still has that much power to circumvent a legal decision.

Officials of the Prosecution Office were said to have failed
to meet all legal technicalities. Do you think the lawyers were
exaggerating?

Yes. If I were in their position, given that Soeharto no
longer has a good name I would show that my client is an
ordinary, law-abiding person.

What is so obvious now is that they are trying to use their
power and legal loopholes to avoid the court order which I think
is highly unethical ... But as far as I know we also lack the
legal mechanisms to give additional punishment to a person who
avoided a court order sending him to jail.

Can the lawyers still be said to be legally correct in the
protection of their client?

No ... I think the lawyers in Tommy's case as well as those in
Soeharto's case have exploited too many technical legal matters
which are actually just administrative issues.

Look, Tommy knew that his plea for pardon was rejected by
President Abdurrahman Wahid, then on the day of the official
announcement he leaves his house. So of course he can say he has
not received the copy of the President's rejection.

This is just a ruse that can be considered extraordinary ...
This also shows that lawyers do not act in support of legal
enforcement ... Lawyers, on the contrary, have become supporters
of those evading the law.

This case leads to a bad perception of the legal profession.

Lawyers have their code of ethics, don't they?

Lawyers' ethics are that they are obliged to support efforts
to uphold legal enforcement and justice. But, in Tommy's case,
they (the lawyers) did not because they tried to avoid the
execution (of the decision) even when justice was already carried
out through the Supreme Court's verdict and the President's
rejection of Tommy's plea for pardon.

They (the lawyers) also argued that Tommy's safety was in
danger in Cipinang jail. That is a far fetched argument. They
should just surrender Tommy to the prison authorities and let the
government take responsibility for Tommy's safety. It is simple,
but they didn't do that.

Many say the prosecutors are not serious in executing the
verdict.

They (the prosecutors) were not thorough enough when they did
not bring the copy of the prosecutor's verdict to arrest Tommy.

Tommy's whereabouts should be monitored since the Supreme
Court's verdict was decided far before the President's
rejection ...

Speculations emerging around the failure to arrest Tommy such
as the assumption that there's a ploy behind this is to be
expected. This is bad for the prosecutors' name. The Prosecutor's
Office must work hard to find Tommy, or people will continue to
think that money and power are still above the law.

Is it possible to sue the lawyers over what they did to
protect Tommy?

I don't know. But, if I were on the side of the police, I
would assume the lawyers are hiding the one who should be jailed.
There is a legal basis for that ... I agree that everybody
deserves advocacy before the law, which does not mean freeing the
guilty from the law ... but defense should be conducted in line
with human rights and within the legal corridors. There is a
limit to defending certain people.

A lawyer should only base his argument on material truth. If a
client is guilty and the lawyer knows that, the lawyer should try
to show the client the consequence of doing this and that. But
the lawyer should not motivate his client to violate the law.

There are associations of advocates, but none seemed to have
reprimanded the lawyers.

Probably because this practice is normal to lawyers. I think
(the issue) is something that should be discussed by lawyers.

Wouldn't the government's intelligence agencies know of
Tommy's whereabouts?

That's it. I am astonished. Intelligence (personnel) used to
easily be able to catch pro-democracy activists who were hiding
in many places. Now, I don't believe they can't find Tommy whose
bodyguards are always around him.

I think people have the right to suspect that there is a
conspiracy among law enforcers behind the slow handling of
Tommy's arrest or even one involving higher ranking officials.
(Asip A. Hasani)