Gus Yaqut Says Former Subordinate's Testimony Barely Differs from Slander
Former Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas vented his frustration during a further hearing into the alleged corruption of the 2024 additional hajj quota. The man familiarly known as Gus Yaqut was angered by the testimony of Nur Arifin, former Director of Special Hajj Guidance at the Ministry of Religious Affairs.
The hearing, at which the witness was examined, was held at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on Tuesday (15/9).
Gus Yaqut took issue with Nur Arifin’s statement in the Examination Report (BAP), which said that the policy on the distribution of special hajj quotas originated from him and fellow defendant Isfah Abidal Aziz, alias Gus Alex.
According to Gus Yaqut, that testimony was not based on direct communication or any written instruction from him. He considered Nur Arifin’s statement to be sourced merely from other people’s accounts, in other words an assumption.
Gus Yaqut initially read out part of Nur Arifin’s BAP dated 17 September 2025. In that report, Nur Arifin stated that he knew of the policy on filling quotas based on registration order from Gus Alex and Gus Yaqut.
“Did I ever convey this directly to Mr Nur Arifin?” Gus Yaqut asked in court.
“Never,” Nur Arifin replied.
“Never — which means it is an assumption, Sir. That is an assumption,” Gus Yaqut insisted.
Gus Yaqut then asserted that he had never given any written instruction to Nur Arifin regarding the policy.
“Or, did I ever give a written instruction to Mr Nur Arifin about this?” Gus Yaqut asked.
“Never,” Nur Arifin said.
Gus Yaqut stressed that testimony based purely on assumption is very dangerous, particularly as it had emerged in a criminal case that forced him to face legal proceedings.
“Again, an assumption, Sir. Assumption is very different — only very slightly different — from slander, Sir,” Gus Yaqut insisted.
Gus Yaqut then asked Nur Arifin and another witness, Subhan Cholid, former Director of Overseas Hajj Services at the Directorate General of Hajj and Umrah Organisation (PHU), to understand the consequences of accusations without any basis. He is now deprived of his freedom because of the case he is facing.
“Mr Nur Arifin surely knows the meaning of ‘al-fitnatu asyaddu minal-qatl’ (slander is graver than killing). I stand here having been robbed of my freedom, partly because of that, Sir. Because of slander,” he stressed.
During the examination of Nur Arifin, Gus Yaqut also questioned why the witness had not carried out direct verification of prospective pilgrims proposed by Special Hajj Organisers (PIHK), even though such supervision and verification were part of his duties.
In the BAP, Nur Arifin stated that he did not verify the names proposed by PIHK because he already knew the policy came from Gus Alex and Gus Yaqut.
However, when questioned in court, Nur Arifin explained that he had still instructed his subordinates to implement the rules.
According to Nur Arifin, detailed verification of all files was the task of technical staff, while he ensured the process ran according to the regulations.
Gus Yaqut then highlighted the difference between the testimony in the BAP and the facts revealed in court.
In court, Nur Arifin gave testimony that differed from his BAP, including regarding a threat of reassignment after the witness objected to a draft of Director-General Decision Number 240 concerning the additional hajj quota.
In the BAP, Nur Arifin stated: “On 28 December 2023 I was reassigned to UIN Sunan Gunung Djati because I rejected the proposal for a 50:50 division of the additional quota in the minister’s meeting room.”
Gus Yaqut’s legal team repeatedly pressed on this testimony because it was cited in the indictment. However, Nur Arifin claimed he never said he had refused.
Presiding Judge Ni Kadek Susiantini was forced to take over the hearing and summoned the legal team, Nur Arifin, and the public prosecutors to confirm the BAP.
“Is it true that you gave this testimony during the examination?” the judge asked Nur Arifin.
“I do not agree with the word ‘I refused’,” Nur Arifin replied.
Unsatisfied, the judge asked again whether the testimony in the BAP had been initialled by the witness himself. Nur Arifin insisted that he had never stated directly that the reassignment occurred because of his rejection of the 50:50 division of the additional hajj quota.
“I read it quickly. Because I was tired, I was not aware there was the word ‘refused’. What I recounted was based on the law,” Nur Arifin said.
Judge Ni Kadek, losing patience, finally ended the questioning. “Enough — let the judges later assess the witness’s testimony,” she said.
Gus Yaqut’s lawyer Melissa Anggraini considered the testimony to prove there was no causal relationship between Nur Arifin’s stance on the additional hajj quota distribution and his reassignment.
“That is merely the witness’s own assumption relating to what was conveyed by Rizky Fisa. We do not know what Rizky Fisa’s motive was. A personal interest, certainly,” Melissa said.