Former Deputy Minister Silmy Karim Files Pre-trial Motion Challenging KPK Coercive Measures
The former Deputy Minister of Immigration and Correctional Services, Silmy Karim, is questioning the coercive measures, including detention and seizure, carried out by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
This was stated by Silmy’s legal counsel, Soleman Pontoh, following a pre-trial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Monday (2/9). Soleman noted that one of the primary grounds for the pre-trial motion is the compliance of the KPK’s administrative letters and all procedures within the investigation process, specifically regarding the alignment of documents with the actions taken by investigators.
“This is a pre-trial motion. A pre-trial examines the validity of detention, arrest, and seizure,” he said.
In essence, Soleman stated that the motion was filed because various coercive measures taken by the KPK are legally invalid. “The invalidity is assessed based on existing standards, such as the detention letters—the dates on these letters and who signed them. We are looking at the formal aspects,” he explained.
Soleman emphasised that all investigative actions must comply with the procedures regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Therefore, the pre-trial motion aims to test actions deemed inconsistent with those regulations. “If they deviate from the standard, we are questioning why. They are not permitted to deviate,” he added.
“For instance, if the investigation is dated on a certain day, but the arrest happened on the 3rd and the letter was only issued on the 4th, that is not permitted,” he further noted.
In addition to challenging the formal aspects of the coercive measures, Silmy is also requesting the return of items seized by the KPK. “There is a list; there are many items. As reported in the news, there are various items. Essentially, everything that was seized should be returned,” he said.
In his petition, Silmy also highlighted Investigation Order Number Sprin.Dik/27.1/DIK.00/01/06/2026 issued by the KPK. He argued that the Investigation Order was issued on the same day as his designation as a suspect. “Consequently, regarding the designation of the petitioner as a suspect, a question arises as to when the respondent (KPK) obtained at least two valid pieces of evidence, as intended in Article 235 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, which served as the basis for designating the petitioner as a suspect,” Silmy’s lawsuit stated.
Silmy maintains that he was not caught in a sting operation (OTT) by the KPK. He explained that he actually went to the KPK to provide testimony following instructions from the Minister of Immigration and Correctional Services, Agus Andrianto.
According to Silmy, his arrival at the KPK following the sting operation cannot be interpreted as a surrender, nor can it be classified as being caught red-handed as defined in Article 1 number 40 of the KUHAP. “The petitioner arrived on 3 June 2026 at approximately 20:00 WIB, following instructions from his superior to meet the KPK investigators handling the case of his subordinate, because information was developing through the mass media at that time regarding the arrest of his subordinate,” he explained.
He argued that since he was not part of the sting operation sequence, the examination should have been conducted through normal investigation and prosecution procedures as regulated by the KUHAP. Consequently, he believes the KPK’s designation of him as a suspect contradicts the principle of legal certainty and violates the principle of the due process model as regulated in Article 1 number 28 of the KUHAP in conjunction with Article 1 number 31 of the KUHAP.