Forensic Audit as an Instrument: Strengthening BPKH and Rationalising BPIH
The management of Hajj funds involves the trust of millions of pilgrims. Therefore, any debate regarding the Hajj Financial Management Agency (BPKH) must be based on data, legal frameworks, and the primary objective of Hajj financial management: safeguarding pilgrims’ funds while generating sustainable benefits.
An overview of BPKH’s performance for the 2018–2025 period shows that managed funds increased from Rp112.35 trillion to Rp180.74 trillion. The Benefit Value obtained also grew from Rp5.70 trillion to Rp12.05 trillion. In 2025, this overview recorded a Benefit Value of Rp6.85 trillion used for the Hajj Operational Cost (BPIH) and Rp4.40 trillion distributed to waiting pilgrims through the Virtual Account Benefit Value (NMVA).
These figures must be read carefully. The growth of funds and Benefit Value is not the sole measure of success. However, these achievements provide important context: BPKH manages funds on a large scale, with instruments and usage objectives regulated by a specific legal framework.
Law Number 3arg34 of 2014, Government Regulation Number 5 of 2018, and Presidential Regulation Number 110 of 2017 serve as the boundaries for Hajj financial management. Placement and investment cannot be performed without limits. Management must adhere to the principles of Sharia, prudence, security, benefit, and liquidity, accompanied by the obligations of planning, accountability, reporting, and supervision.
Within this framework, BPKH has obtained an Unqualified Opinion (WTP) eight consecutive times since its inception, based on financial reports from 2018–2025. This achievement deserves appreciation as part of management accountability. However, the WTP opinion must be placed correctly: the opinion states the fairness of financial statements based on audits by the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK), not a guarantee that all risks have disappeared or that every process has achieved the best possible result.
In the context of the President’s directive to strengthen Hajj financial governance, BPKH states that it respects and is ready to support efforts to increase transparency, accountability, and the protection of pilgrims’ funds. BPKH has undergone routine audits by the BPK and publishes audited financial reports. For further examinations, BPKH also states its readiness to provide complete data and documents in accordance with its authority and prevailing laws and regulations.
Such a cooperative stance is vital. Support for audits is part of public accountability, while the results should serve as a basis for measurable improvements. A forensic audit can help obtain a factual picture and trace issues in depth, but its execution does not, in itself, prove that deviations have occurred. The scope, methodology, authority, and follow-up must be conducted professionally.
Therefore, a forensic audit should be viewed as an instrument, not an end goal. Regardless of the audit results, what matters is the follow-up: addressing governance weaknesses, strengthening controls, closing risk gaps, and ensuring the protection of pilgrims’ funds. Supervision through regular audits, the supervisory board, BPK examinations, internal controls, and the follow-up of recommendations must continue to be carried out consistently.