Entangled in DJKA and Village Official Extortion Cases, Sudewo Rejects Being Tried Under a Single Indictment

Sudewo’s legal team submitted an exception during a follow-up hearing at the Semarang Corruption Court on Monday, objecting to the public prosecutor’s decision to combine two separate cases into a single indictment. The defence argued that the merger of the alleged corruption case at the Directorate General of Railways (DJKA) of the Ministry of Transportation and the extortion case involving village officials in Pati Regency is baseless and risks harming their client’s right to a defence. The exception was read out alternately by the eight-member legal team, consisting of Aviv Dihan Kuntoro, Yupen Hadi, Indra Perbawa, Indra Alisman, Boy Tidarmawan Putra, Rudy Adianto, and Justinus Slamet Murdomo. The legal team did not address the substance of the case but focused on the prosecutor’s decision to combine the two matters. They cited Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which stipulates that cases may only be combined if they are committed by the same person, are interconnected, and if the consolidation is necessary for the examination process. The defence argued that the DJKA and village official cases have different legal bases, spheres of authority, times and locations of the alleged offences, actors, objects, witnesses, and evidence, thus failing to meet the requirements for consolidation. They further argued that the merger violates Article 75, paragraph (3) of the KUHAP, which requires an indictment to be carefully, clearly, and completely described. The defence stated that the consolidation creates an obstacle to the examination process because the panel of judges must examine two different constructions of a case within a single framework, while the defendant must face two separate spaces of defence in one indictment. They added that the defendant is not only forced to confront substantially different charges but also faces the risk of mixed perceptions between the two indictments, where one charge could colour the perspective on the other, even though each should be tested independently based on its own factual boundaries.