Facts Behind the Verdict in Nadiem Makarim's Laptop Corruption Case
A panel of judges at the Corruption Court in Central Jakarta has delivered its verdict against Nadiem Anwar Makarim, the former Minister of Education, Culture, Research and Technology under President Joko Widodo. The ruling, read on Tuesday (30/6), was not unanimous and featured a dissenting opinion from one of the panel members.
Nadiem was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of Rp1 billion, with a subsidiary sentence of 190 days’ imprisonment. The judges found him guilty of corruption in the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM) for the 2020-2022 fiscal years. In addition to the prison term, the panel imposed a supplementary penalty requiring him to pay Rp809.5 billion in restitution. If this sum is not paid, it will be replaced by an additional five years in prison.
In handing down the sentence, the judges outlined several aggravating factors. They stated that Nadiem’s actions contradicted the government’s and the public’s commitment to eradicating corruption. As a minister who should have set an example, he instead abused his authority. The judges described the crime as planned, structured, and systematic, resulting in massive state financial losses and a broad impact on education delivery, particularly for children in underdeveloped, frontier, and outermost regions. His considerable personal wealth was also noted, removing any economic necessity as a motive. Mitigating factors included his clean prior criminal record and his polite and cooperative demeanour during the trial. The presiding judge, Purwanto S Abdullah, also acknowledged Nadiem’s previous reputation as a figure who contributed to educational and technological innovation.
The verdict is not yet legally binding, as Nadiem immediately declared his intention to appeal. “I will certainly continue to fight for my children and my family, for the Indonesia I still love. I will file an appeal to fight for the truth,” he said after the hearing.
Judge Andi Saputra, the fourth member of the panel, issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that Nadiem should have been acquitted of all charges. Andi stated that the evidence presented in court failed to prove the existence of mens rea, or criminal intent, on Nadiem’s part. He argued that the facts did not establish a causal link showing a malicious intent to commit an unlawful act. Andi also contended that Nadiem’s signing of Minister of Education and Culture Regulation Number 5 of 2021 could not be qualified as a criminal act, as the regulation did not lock in a specific brand but rather the operating system. Furthermore, he found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Nadiem and the other defendants in the case.
The panel confirmed that the total state financial loss in the case amounted to Rp1.5 trillion, based on an audit by the Development Finance Comptroller (BPKP). The calculation method involved determining the difference between the net payment realisation and the fair value of the laptops that should have been paid by the state. The judges, however, rejected a prosecution demand to impose a restitution payment of approximately Rp4.8 trillion, which was sought to maximise state financial recovery. The panel ruled that while it understood the intent, the legal mechanism used for this specific demand was not appropriate and did not meet the principles of legality, legal certainty, and proportionality.