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)