Four-Year Sentence for Ibam Accompanied by Dissenting Opinion from Two Judges, Here Are the Considerations

Two judges on the Jakarta Corruption Court panel issued a dissenting opinion in the verdict for the alleged corruption case in the procurement of Chromebook-based laptops, which ensnared former technology consultant Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, with a four-year sentence.

In the dissenting opinion, Member Judge II Eryusman and Member Judge IV Andi Saputra assessed that there was no direct role or malicious intent by the defendant in the case.

“That from the series of reasons above, it is not proven that there was malicious intent by the defendant as charged by the prosecutor,” stated the considerations of the dissenting opinion read out at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday (12/5/2026).

“The defendant only provided considerations or consultations to officials of the Ministry of Education and Culture and had no authority to pressure or intervene with structural officials of the Ministry of Education and Culture to make decisions,” the dissenting opinion read.

The judges also highlighted the fact that Ibam was not part of the WhatsApp group “Mas Menteri Core Team” mentioned in the trial.

“The defendant was not a member of the WhatsApp group ‘Mas Menteri Core Team’. This shows that the defendant did not have a circle with the other witnesses,” the judge stated.

“The defendant stated that Chromebooks have a high dependency on internet connections, which is a challenge in many regions of Indonesia,” the judge said.

According to the judges, the defendant also recommended the use of Windows-based devices for school needs.

“The defendant recommended that Windows-based PCs are still needed for schools due to their flexibility and functionality,” the considerations continued.

“The defendant is not proven to have lobbied, made efforts, or approached the budget managers of the Ministry of Education and Culture to choose Chromebooks,” the judge said.

“The defendant did not receive kickbacks from principals so that his analysis would favour a certain brand,” the dissenting opinion added.

“Although there is indeed a series of actions related to one another, there is no direct and strong causality between the defendant’s actions and the crime that arose,” the dissenting opinion concluded.