High Court Urged Not to Delay Detention Order for Chromebook Corruption Defendant

The legal status of the defendant in the Chromebook procurement corruption case, Ibrahim Arief (also known as Ibam), is now in the hands of the High Court. This follows Ibam’s appeal against the District Court’s verdict, which found him guilty and sentenced him to four years in prison and a fine of Rp500 million. If the fine is not paid, it will be replaced by 120 days of imprisonment.

Legal analyst Fajar Trio explained that as the case files have moved to the appellate level, the High Court holds full juridical authority over the defendant’s detention status for the purposes of the second-instance examination. “At the District Court level, Ibam was declared guilty and ordered to be placed in detention. Now, the pressure is on the High Court. The High Court has absolute authority over the defendant’s detention status while the appeal is ongoing. The public is urging the High Court not to delay and to immediately issue a detention order,” said Fajar on Sunday.

Although the District Court’s verdict explicitly included an order for detention in a prison facility, the execution of this physical detention has not yet been implemented because the defendant immediately filed an appeal. Fajar warned that the appeal process should not be used as a loophole for corruption defendants to delay their imprisonment. “The High Court must be responsive to the public’s sense of justice. The appointed panel of judges should take a progressive step by issuing a detention order without waiting for the substantive examination of the entire appeal memorandum to be completed,” Fajar added.

Furthermore, the prosecution is advised to take an active role by formally requesting the High Court to clarify the defendant’s detention status. Fajar noted that any delay could trigger public speculation regarding preferential treatment for the defendant.

Previously, Ibam’s legal team, led by Arfian Bondjol, confirmed they would pursue an appeal within the seven-day legal timeframe. While respecting the legal process, the defence expressed disappointment with the verdict, noting that two judges had issued dissenting opinions. Ibam, who has been under city arrest due to health conditions, maintains his innocence and asserts that the case should not set a bad precedent for consultants working with the state.