Former Unsrat Rector Sentenced to One Year in Prison for Building Project Case
The panel of judges at the Manado Corruption Court sentenced former Sam Ratulangi University (Unsrat) Rector Ellen Kumaat to one year in prison and a fine of Rp50 million, along with three other defendants, in a case concerning a faculty building construction project at Unsrat. The rector and the other defendants were found to have enriched themselves, others, or a corporation during the construction of the law and engineering faculty buildings, which used loan funds from the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) between 2017 and 2019, causing state losses of Rp2.2 billion.
"Sentencing the defendant named Ellen Kumaat to one year in prison and a replacement payment of Rp173 million, as well as a criminal fine of Rp50 million, subsidiary to 60 days of confinement," said Presiding Judge Ronald Massang, accompanied by fellow judges Ibnu Mazjah and Aminudin Dunggio, along with the public prosecutors and the defendants’ legal counsel.
In addition to Ellen, the panel of judges also sentenced the project’s commitment-making officer (PPK) John Toy, supervisory consultant Hadi Prayitno, and the general manager of PT Adikarya, Sukaryo, each to one year in prison and a fine of Rp50 million. They were proven to have jointly participated with Ellen in actions that caused state losses of Rp2.2 billion.
After hearing the panel’s verdict, the four defendants immediately consulted with their legal teams and agreed to accept the decision. Meanwhile, the public prosecution team from the North Sulawesi High Prosecutor’s Office, led by Jasmin Samahati, stated they were still considering their position on the judge’s ruling.
"Your Honour the panel of judges, our client Prof. Dr. Ellen Kumaat has stated she accepts the decision and will not pursue any legal remedy such as an appeal or otherwise," said defence counsel Frangky Weku. Similarly, the legal counsel for Hadi Prayitno, Mario Wagiu and Steve Awaeh, stated that their principal would not pursue an appeal and had accepted the decision.
"We reiterate that they did not take state money, but it was due to their respective duties, which according to the panel of judges caused the state losses. Specifically for our client, he was the one who made the report and on that basis the state then paid the term, which is alleged to have caused the state losses," he said. The legal team for defendant Sukaryo also said they respected all of the judge’s decisions, but they disagreed; however, because their client had accepted it, they also accepted it, as they represent the defendant.
In its ruling, the panel of judges stated that the defendants were not proven to have committed the acts as charged in the primary indictment, but were proven to have violated the subsidiary indictment, and were handed the same sentence.