Former SOE Ministry Secretary Warns Tom Lembong Verdict Could Set Dangerous Legal Precedent
Former Secretary of the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN), Muhammad Said Didu, has argued that the verdict against former Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) chief and ex-Trade Minister Tom Lembong in the sugar import case has the potential to create a dangerous legal precedent. According to Said Didu, the logic and interpretation used by the panel of judges could become a legal boomerang ensnaring many other state officials, including President Joko Widodo.
In a video uploaded to his personal social media channel, Said Didu expressed his astonishment at the judges' considerations. He said he attended the sentencing hearing in person and conveyed concerns that the Lembong verdict could widen the scope for criminalising state policy.
"I witnessed it directly, and I was shocked," Said Didu stated. "The judges cited three elements of corruption: a legal violation for appointing an SOE without a tender process, state losses because private parties profited, and benefits to other parties even though Lembong himself did not receive a single rupiah."
**Legal Logic Questioned**
According to Said Didu, the judges used an ideological approach to bolster the verdict. He noted that in the ruling, Lembong's policy was deemed "capitalist-oriented" and considered a failure for not succeeding in lowering sugar prices.
"This is no longer positive law. This is ideological interpretation," Said Didu remarked. "If all public policies are judged by their success in lowering prices and not benefiting the private sector, then almost every official could be convicted."
He also noted that the ruling opens the door to jurisprudence that could potentially ensnare various major government policies that have been carried out through direct SOE assignments and public-private partnerships.
**Strategic Projects at Risk**
In his analysis, Said Didu detailed ten major projects from the Jokowi administration that could potentially be deemed to meet the same criteria as in the Lembong case. These projects include:
The Jakarta–Bandung High-Speed Railway, which he said was assigned without a tender and ultimately used state budget funds. The construction of the new capital city (IKN), largely financed by the state despite promises of private funding. The food estate programme, which was deemed a failure resulting in budget waste. The Trans Java and Sumatra toll roads, built by SOEs in partnership with the private sector. Kertajati Airport, which he claimed was built without a feasibility study and now stands idle. Fuel procurement and subsidies by Pertamina, which also involves private sector cooperation. Electricity procurement by PLN from Independent Power Producers (IPPs). Subsidised fertiliser distribution involving SOEs and private distributors. Hajj aircraft leasing by Garuda Indonesia from third parties. Telkom's investment in GOTO, which resulted in losses and private sector gains.
"If all of these were examined using the same legal interpretation used to convict Tom Lembong, then President Jokowi could be sentenced to thousands of years in prison," Said Didu stated.
**Concerns Over Policy Criminalisation**
Said Didu emphasised that he was not personally defending Tom Lembong. However, he highlighted how dangerous a legal approach that fails to consider the context of policy and the intent of decision-makers can be.
"During my four years at the KPK, what I feared most was when there were state losses but no kickback. Because that could mean the criminalisation of policy," he said.
He argued that the verdict against Lembong demonstrates that good intentions, professional conduct, and not enriching oneself are still insufficient to protect officials from legal entanglement.
**Threat to Bureaucracy and Government Stability**
Said Didu warned that such legal interpretation could make officials afraid to take strategic decisions. This, he argued, could lead to bureaucratic stagnation and even government paralysis.
"If all ministers are afraid to act because they fear prosecution, then the state cannot function. Government will grind to a halt," he said.
Furthermore, he cautioned that such verdicts could become weapons of political law, ultimately turning against whoever wields them.
"Those who use the law today to bring down others may themselves be brought down by the same law tomorrow," he remarked.
In closing, Said Didu called for the legal interpretation of public policy cases to be reviewed at a higher court level. He urged law enforcement officials to exercise greater care in distinguishing between criminal acts and state policy.
"If the law continues to be used as an instrument of power, it will lose its authority. And if the law is applied with this kind of logic, no state official is safe from prosecution."
In a video uploaded to his personal social media channel, Said Didu expressed his astonishment at the judges' considerations. He said he attended the sentencing hearing in person and conveyed concerns that the Lembong verdict could widen the scope for criminalising state policy.
"I witnessed it directly, and I was shocked," Said Didu stated. "The judges cited three elements of corruption: a legal violation for appointing an SOE without a tender process, state losses because private parties profited, and benefits to other parties even though Lembong himself did not receive a single rupiah."
**Legal Logic Questioned**
According to Said Didu, the judges used an ideological approach to bolster the verdict. He noted that in the ruling, Lembong's policy was deemed "capitalist-oriented" and considered a failure for not succeeding in lowering sugar prices.
"This is no longer positive law. This is ideological interpretation," Said Didu remarked. "If all public policies are judged by their success in lowering prices and not benefiting the private sector, then almost every official could be convicted."
He also noted that the ruling opens the door to jurisprudence that could potentially ensnare various major government policies that have been carried out through direct SOE assignments and public-private partnerships.
**Strategic Projects at Risk**
In his analysis, Said Didu detailed ten major projects from the Jokowi administration that could potentially be deemed to meet the same criteria as in the Lembong case. These projects include:
The Jakarta–Bandung High-Speed Railway, which he said was assigned without a tender and ultimately used state budget funds. The construction of the new capital city (IKN), largely financed by the state despite promises of private funding. The food estate programme, which was deemed a failure resulting in budget waste. The Trans Java and Sumatra toll roads, built by SOEs in partnership with the private sector. Kertajati Airport, which he claimed was built without a feasibility study and now stands idle. Fuel procurement and subsidies by Pertamina, which also involves private sector cooperation. Electricity procurement by PLN from Independent Power Producers (IPPs). Subsidised fertiliser distribution involving SOEs and private distributors. Hajj aircraft leasing by Garuda Indonesia from third parties. Telkom's investment in GOTO, which resulted in losses and private sector gains.
"If all of these were examined using the same legal interpretation used to convict Tom Lembong, then President Jokowi could be sentenced to thousands of years in prison," Said Didu stated.
**Concerns Over Policy Criminalisation**
Said Didu emphasised that he was not personally defending Tom Lembong. However, he highlighted how dangerous a legal approach that fails to consider the context of policy and the intent of decision-makers can be.
"During my four years at the KPK, what I feared most was when there were state losses but no kickback. Because that could mean the criminalisation of policy," he said.
He argued that the verdict against Lembong demonstrates that good intentions, professional conduct, and not enriching oneself are still insufficient to protect officials from legal entanglement.
**Threat to Bureaucracy and Government Stability**
Said Didu warned that such legal interpretation could make officials afraid to take strategic decisions. This, he argued, could lead to bureaucratic stagnation and even government paralysis.
"If all ministers are afraid to act because they fear prosecution, then the state cannot function. Government will grind to a halt," he said.
Furthermore, he cautioned that such verdicts could become weapons of political law, ultimately turning against whoever wields them.
"Those who use the law today to bring down others may themselves be brought down by the same law tomorrow," he remarked.
In closing, Said Didu called for the legal interpretation of public policy cases to be reviewed at a higher court level. He urged law enforcement officials to exercise greater care in distinguishing between criminal acts and state policy.
"If the law continues to be used as an instrument of power, it will lose its authority. And if the law is applied with this kind of logic, no state official is safe from prosecution."