Government criticized for Soeharto negotiations

Government criticized for Soeharto negotiations

JAKARTA (JP): Legal experts have criticized the government for
seeking a deal with former president Soeharto while stalling in
bringing his case to court.

Constitutional law professor Ismail Suny said on Wednesday
that before insisting that former president Soeharto give up his
wealth, he must first be proven guilty by the court.

"If his guilt is not yet determined, how could he be forced to
give up his wealth?" Ismail said after introducing the new
management of the Association of Indonesian Constitutional and
Administrative Law Scholars.

President Abdurrahman Wahid has said he would employ both an
out-of-court settlement and strong public pressure to force the
Soeharto family to give up their alleged wealth.

He has said that the government is negotiating with the
family. Minister of Mines and Energy Lt. Gen. (ret) Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono has been named chief negotiator to regain at
least 50 percent of the alleged illegally gained wealth as an
initial step.

The President claims that Soeharto's wealth totals at least
US$45 billion.

Ismail criticized the slowness of the Attorney General's
Office in the investigation into Soeharto.

"We could avoid further demonstrations if he (the attorney
general) quickly took action," he said.

The apparent misuse of presidential decrees for self benefit
or the benefit of Soeharto's children and cronies are strong
enough proof to take the case to trial, Ismail said.

He said that only after a fair trial could compromises be made
for Soeharto.

"We don't want him dead after putting him in prison, do we?"
he said.

Another law expert, Bagir Manan, agreed with Ismail that
Soeharto first should be put on trial before getting him to give
up his alleged wealth, unless he or his family voluntarily
surrendered it.

He also asserted the need to ascertain the extent of the
former president's wealth and how much should be regained by the
state.

If Soeharto voluntarily gives up his wealth, it "does not mean
that the crime is then erased", Bagir said.

It only means that by the act his punishment could be reduced,
he added. (10)