Five Legal Arguments by Yaqut's Lawyers Challenging His Suspect Status

The ongoing pretrial suit filed by former Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas against the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) continues in court. Yaqut’s spokesperson for the legal team, Mellisa Anggraini, says the designation of Yaqut as a suspect in the 2024 Hajj quota corruption case is procedurally defective. She outlines five observations regarding the designation of the suspect’s status. One of them concerns the absence of an audit of state losses prior to the designation. “First, the designation as a suspect was made without a preceding audit of state losses. KPK designated Gus Yaqut as a suspect on 8 January 2026, while the official report from the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) was only issued on 24 February 2026. This shows that the designation of a suspect was made before there was a valid basis for calculating state losses,” Mellisa said in a statement on Sunday, 8 March 2026. Mellisa noted that the designation of the suspect was carried out by KPK leadership rather than investigators. She questioned the legality of such authority in the designation process. “The designation as a suspect was carried out by KPK leadership, not by investigators. Yet, under Law Number 19 of 2019 on KPK, the leaders do not hold status as investigators or public prosecutors. Accordingly, this raises serious questions about the legality of the authority in the designation process,” she said. She also highlighted that Yaqut had not received an official notice of designation as a suspect. According to her, this contradicts Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 and Article 90(2) of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). “Third, to date Gus Yaqut has not received an official notice of designation as a suspect, but only a notification letter. This practice is not in line with the provisions of Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 and Article 90(2) of Law Number 20 of 2025 on KUHAP which regulate the lawful procedures for designating a suspect,” she added. The fourth argument, Mellisa said, concerns the KPK’s inconsistent use of legal bases in the investigative process. For the issuance of the Investigation Warrant (Sprindik), she said, KPK uses different legal bases, namely referring to the old KUHAP and the new KUHAP, creating legal uncertainty. “Fifth, the basis for the designation of the suspect is said to be the notula ekspose. However, the notula ekspose is not an evidentiary document as defined in criminal procedure law and does not have binding force to serve as the basis for designating someone as a suspect,” Mellisa stated. She hopes the judges will assess the praperadilan case objectively. She wants law enforcement to be upheld within the proper legal framework. “Therefore, through this praperadilan hearing, the defence team hopes the panel of judges can objectively and independently evaluate all the legal facts presented in court. The principles of justice and legal certainty must be upheld so that the law enforcement process remains within the proper legal framework,” she added. KPK Response The KPK said Yaqut’s challenges to the designation of a suspect in the Hajj quota case fall outside the remit of the praperadilan judge. KPK stated that the applicant’s arguments are errors in objecto. “The Applicants’ main arguments regarding the designation letter, the designation notice letter, the leadership’s authority in the designation letter, the calculation of state losses, the criminal procedure law applied in the case at hand, are arguments that are not within the scope of praperadilan or outside the formal aspects within the praperadilan judge’s jurisdiction,” the KPK Legal Bureau Team told the praperadilan trial at the South Jakarta District Court. The KPK stated that the scope of praperadilan judges is set out in Article 1 Point 10 in conjunction with Article 77 of KUHAP 1981, in conjunction with Constitutional Court Decision No. 21 of 2014 dated 28 April 2015, and Perma No. 4 of 2016. The KPK said calculating state losses is also not within the scope of praperadilan. “That the designation letter and the designation notice letter are administrative documents in investigations or judicial administration, not compulsory measures, so they are not within the scope of praperadilan,” said the KPK Legal Bureau Team. “Similarly with the leadership’s authority, the calculation of state losses, and the criminal procedure laws applied in the case at hand are not within the scope of praperadilan,” they added. The KPK said praperadilan judges do not have the authority to assess the substantive matter of a corruption charge, nor to conduct examination during a praperadilan hearing by a single judge with a seven-day limit from the open session. The KPK argued that Yaqut’s praperadilan request should be rejected. “Thus, the applicant’s arguments, which mix the substance of the case with the jurisdiction of the Praperadilan Court, make the pleadings unclear or obscure (obscuur libel),” it said. Watch also Video: ‘Yaqut Calls the Hajj Quota Corruption Case a Lesson for Leaders’.