Fri, 28 Feb 2003

House kills motion against convicted corruptor Akbar

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Despite pressure from the public and legislators, the House of Representatives (DPR) failed again on Thursday to decide on a motion brought against criminal convict Akbar Tandjung, speaker of the House.

Akbar was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to three years in jail in 2002 for his role in a Rp 40 billion (US$4.7 million) financial scandal involving the State Logistics Agency (Bulog).

The Jakarta High Court upheld the ruling in January 2003, prompting some 70 legislators to submit a motion seeking the establishment of a House disciplinary committee to try and remove the Golkar chairman from his post as House speaker. Akbar is free pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is headed by former Golkar member Bagir Manan.

During the House plenary meeting on Thursday, a heated debate took place over the motion between legislators who wanted Akbar to be disciplined and lawmakers loyal to the chairman of the New Order political machine.

While the two camps argued, House deputy speaker Soetardjo Soerjogoeritno, who was presiding, suddenly banged his gavel and closed the plenary meeting.

This unexpected turn of events drew protest from legislators, but Soetardjo, from President Megawati Soekarnoputri's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) simply waved his hand.

According to Soetardjo, the plenary meeting on Thursday was arranged simply to hear a report on the chronology of a motion against Akbar by 72 inter-faction legislators.

Responding to the report, National Awakening Party (PKB) faction chairman Rodjil Ghufron suggested that the plenary meeting make a final decision to end the debate.

Dwi Ria Latifa, Firman Jaya Daeli and Permadi of PDI Perjuangan concurred, suggesting that each faction should express its stance on the issue.

"How can we talk about the eradication of corruption if we are led by a convicted corrupter?" Ria Latifa asked.

Some legislators cited the case of former president Abdurrahman Wahid and compared it to Akbar's. Abdurrahman, popularly known as Gus Dur, was accused of misusing Rp 35 billion in funds belonging to the State Logistics Agency (Bulog) and receiving US$2 million from Brunei Darussalam.

The allegation led to Abdurrahman's removal from presidential office in July 2001.

Mutamimmul 'Ula and Mashadi of the Reform faction and Hamdan Zoelva of the Crescent Star Party (PBB) faction were among those calling for a final decision from the House.

But Akbar's loyalists, Abduh Paddare of the United Development Party (PPP) faction, and Ade Komaruddin, Agun Gunandjar Sudarsa and Yahya Zaini of Golkar, emphasized that the motion against Akbar's leadership could not be followed up because it was regulated by House internal rulings.

"An expression by legislators is made only to comment on policies of the government," Yahya added.

Prompted by confusion over the war of words, Soetardjo made an unexpected decision.

He said that the controversy would be returned to the House steering committee for further discussion. This decision obviously reflected the House's reluctance to dismiss Akbar from his post.

Chronology of the motion against Akbar ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Sept.16, 2002 : 72 inter-faction legislators propose motion

against Akbar's leadership. 2. Sept.17, 2002 : House leaders discuss the motion and tell

the House steering committee to discuss it further. 3. Oct.31, 2002 : A meeting of the steering committee asks

House leaders for their input on the issue. 4. Nov.5, 2002 : A meeting of House leaders says it needs time

to assess the motion against Akbar Tandjung. 5. Nov.12, 2002 : House leaders conclude that there is no

regulation to follow up the motion. 6. Nov.26, 2002 : A steering committee meeting suggests all

factions inform their members of the House leaders'

decision. 7. Jan.30, 2003 : A meeting of the steering committee decides that

a plenary meeting on Feb.27 will hear

the chronology of the motion against Akbar. --------------------------------------------------------------- Source: DPR