Former Supreme Court Secretary Nurhadi hopes for a fair verdict from the judge in his case
Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Secretary of the Supreme Court (MA) for the period 2011-2016, Nurhadi, through his advocate, hopes that the Panel of Judges at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court will deliver a fair verdict in his case.
Nurhadi’s advocate, Mohammad Ikhsan, stated after reading the response to the public prosecutor’s rebuttal (duplik) in the hearing at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on Friday (27/3) that his client is leaving the matter entirely to the panel of judges’ decision, with the reading scheduled for Wednesday (1/4).
“We hope the panel of judges will deliver a fair verdict and recognise the criminalisation efforts being carried out against Nurhadi,” Ikhsan said in a statement received in Jakarta on Saturday.
He explained that Nurhadi had previously conducted a reverse proof by detailing the facts of his total income from 2011-2018 from salary and allowances amounting to approximately Rp25.8 billion, plus income from his swiftlet nest business which he has run since 1981, generating approximately Rp41.14 billion.
In total, he continued, all that income reaches around Rp66.9 billion, all of which has been reported and recorded in the Annual Tax Notification Letter (SPT) for 2002 and as stated in the attachment to the State Organiser’s Wealth Report (LHKPN) for 2012.
In addition, he added that various assets accused by the prosecutors as money laundering crime (TPPU) assets, consisting of a villa in Megamendung, three units of apartments in Infinity Tower Jakarta, and one Mercedes Sprinter vehicle, which have been calculated in the trial, only amount to approximately Rp28 billion, thus far below Nurhadi’s total income or receipts.
Another member of the advocacy team, Muhammad Rudjito, assessed that the prosecutors could not prove their charges throughout the trial.
“The judges can certainly see clearly that the prosecutors’ charges are very assumptive and sometimes seem hallucinatory because they cannot prove the charges. Their demand is also not based on the law of evidence,” said Rudjito.
According to him, the assumptive and hallucinatory nature was evident during the examination of various witnesses stated by the prosecutors as gratuity givers, where they have revealed that they never gave gratuities to Nurhadi.
After the duplik hearing, Nurhadi himself is convinced that he is entirely innocent of the public prosecutor’s accusations regarding the alleged gratuity receipt and TPPU case, which has entered the final stage of the trial.
“Throughout this trial, the prosecutors could not prove their charges. On the contrary, I have conducted a reverse proof of the assets I own and their sources,” said Nurhadi.
Therefore, he hopes that the Panel of Judges can see the truth that has been revealed based on the facts of the trial that has been conducted.
With that conviction, Nurhadi once challenged the prosecutors to perform mubahalah at the hearing two days earlier, on Wednesday (25/3), at the same place. However, the public prosecutor did not respond to the request from the former MA Secretary.
Mubahalah is a heavy oath or mutual cursing prayer between two disputing parties in a matter of truth (especially faith) to prove who is right and wrong, where the lying party is ready to receive the curse of Allah.
In the case of alleged gratuity receipt in the court environment in the period 2013-2019 and TPPU in the period 2012-2018, Nurhadi was demanded a prison sentence of 7 years, a fine of Rp500 million subsidiary prison for 140 days, and to pay replacement money of Rp137.16 billion subsidiary 3 years imprisonment, because he is accused of receiving gratuities worth Rp137.16 billion.
The gratuities are alleged to have been received from parties involved in cases in the court environment, both at the first instance, appeal, cassation, and judicial review levels, during Nurhadi’s tenure or after he finished serving as MA Secretary.
Nurhadi faces penalties as stipulated in Article 12B in conjunction with Article 18 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended and supplemented by Law No. 20 of 2001 and Article 3 of Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crimes jo. Article 65 paragraph (1) first of the Criminal Code.