House Commission X Calls for Evaluation of Unsoed Admissions System Following Rector Case
The House of Representatives Commission X has assessed that the case of extortion and gratuity involving prospective new students by the Rector of Jenderal Soedirman University (Unsoed), Akhmad Sodiq, tarnishes the values of higher education. Commission X supports an examination of new students admitted as a result of Sodiq’s extortion and gratuity.
‘In my view, if the alleged extortion and gratuity are proven, this case clearly tarnishes the integrity of higher education,’ said Deputy Chairman of House Commission X Lalu Hadrian to reporters on Sunday (23/8/2026).
Lalu considered that universities should be places that uphold honesty, fairness, and meritocracy, not places for buying and selling student seats. Therefore, Lalu encouraged an examination of new students resulting from Sodiq’s extortion and gratuity.
‘For students suspected of entering through such practices, do not immediately punish or expel them. They must be reviewed one by one. If they or their parents were actually victims of extortion, they must not be victimised again,’ said Lalu.
‘However, if it is proven that some deliberately purchased seats and their admission did not meet academic requirements, the university needs to conduct a fair and transparent examination,’ he added.
Nevertheless, Lalu stressed that new students resulting from the Unsoed Rector’s extortion must not become secondary victims. According to Lalu, what is needed is an overhaul of the new student selection system.
‘In essence, students must not become secondary victims. What must be fixed is the admissions system and the people who abuse their authority,’ he continued.
Acting Director of Investigation at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Achmad Taufik Husein previously stated that the extortion cluster in this case resembles bribery. However, he said, his agency saw a power relation of authority in the admission of prospective new students.
‘For the extortion element, the event is indeed somewhat ambiguous compared with bribery. But because there is a power relation and authority, the emphasis is that this admissions system has someone with authority, someone who authorises,’ said Taufik at a press conference at the KPK building, South Jakarta, on Friday (21/8).
‘There was a system for providing an approval code or click. Now, when that click is held by an authority with full power, this can lead to abuse of power,’ he continued.
In the first cluster of this case, there was a demand for Rp 650 million to the parents of a prospective new student at the Faculty of Medicine for 2026. According to Taufik, the parents then tried their utmost by giving money as an intention to enrol their child in that faculty.
‘This abuse of power was then interpreted downwards, to the staff, and requested from the parents, so that any parents who had the intention of enrolling their child at Unsoed would try their utmost,’ he said.
From that, according to Taufik, parents did not have a strong position to be on a level with the rector, who had authority over the new student admissions system.
‘Therefore, it is constructed as extortion because there was no balanced effort to offset or counterbalance the new student admissions system whose authority was solely held by the Rector at that university,’ he said.
In the second cluster, related to gratuity in new student selection worth Rp 680 million, Taufik said the KPK applied the gratuity article because it did not find any criminal conspiracy by parents to enrol their children at Unsoed.
‘In the second cluster, we constructed the article as gratuity, because if there is only a state official carrying out normal state duties, then because of an achievement perceived by the client, or in this case the new student or parents felt their child had passed and expressed gratitude, the power relation is actually only from the student’s side, from the parents, merely expressing thanks,’ he said.
Meanwhile, the third cluster relates to negotiation of a dowry of Rp 1.12 billion. According to Taufik, the second and third clusters are classified as gratuity because no agreement was found to admit prospective students to Unsoed.
‘That is why we constructed the gratuity article specifically for the second and third clusters. Because there is indeed no element or criminal conspiracy related to an agreement on whether efforts could be made to enrol their child at Unsoed,’ he said.
‘So there was only a levy, and then when the student was declared to have passed, the parents gave thanks in the form of money,’ he added.
In this case, the KPK has named six people as suspects. They are:
Akhmad Sodiq, Rector of Unsoed
Norman Arie Prayoga, Vice Rector III of Unsoed
Eko Sumanto, Head of Academic Affairs at Unsoed
Dian Mulia Wardhana, private party
Adhi Wiharto, private party
Mulyono, private party.
The suspects are charged with violating Article 12 letter e or Article 12 B of the Corruption Eradication Law in conjunction with Article 20 letter (c) of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code.