House told to probe Djoko court ruling

JAKARTA (JP): Legal observers condemned on Wednesday the ruling of the South Jakarta District Court to dismiss an indictment against Djoko S. Tjandra, a main suspect in the high- profile Bank Bali scandal.

Teten Masduki and Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara urged the House of Representatives to immediately make a thorough investigation into the judges' ruling, which they considered an affront to public sentiment.

Another senior legal expert, Antonius Sujata, urged the court to name new judges and prosecutors for a fresh trial.

All of them agreed that Monday's ruling, read by presiding judge R. Soenarto, did not conform to logical legal arguments.

"It's outrageous! The ruling could undermine the spirit of other law enforcers who attempted to fight against corruption in this country," Sujata, a former deputy attorney general for special crimes, said.

Mar'ie Muhammad of the Indonesian Transparency Society (MTI) said law enforcers in the country should not become political vehicles for the interests of certain parties.

"We have to get back to the law," he said.

Teten, coordinator of corruption watchdog the Indonesian Corruption Watch, said: "Since the case has come to the public's attention, the House must take the initiative to probe whether the ruling was free from intervention by other parties, and also from corruption, by summoning the judges and prosecutors involved in the trial."

Abdul Hakim shared the view.

"The controversial ruling has further tarnished the country's image. Foreigners, particularly investors, might consider that law enforcement no longer exists in this country."

Teten, Hakim and Sujata concluded that the judges could have proceeded with a trial on the charge of corruption without having to drop it on a legal technicality.

"Even a child knows that a cessie contract case should go to a civil court. But the substance of the case is a corruption case," Sujata said.

He insisted that the case of Djoko, an executive of PT Era Giat Prima (EGP), was a crime.

"How could the judges drop the charge without after studying the substance of the case and seeing the evidence?"

Teten said there was sufficient evidence to rule it was a criminal case.

"Djoko, through PT EGP, has enjoyed a big share of money through the cessie contract, even bigger than Bank Bali, the party which issued the contract." He said PT EGP earned about Rp 540 billion, while the bank received about Rp 300 billion.

Soenarto and his fellow judges ruled to dismiss the case, contending there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's involvement in corruption.

"It's a civil case, not a criminal one," Soenarto said, adding that only a civil court could rule on the legality of the cessie contract.

The scandal centers on the transfer of Rp 546 billion from the bank to PT EGP as a commission for services in assisting the bank in recouping some Rp 904 billion in interbank loans on closed banks from the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA).

Part of the money was believed to have been transferred to the Golkar Party as a slush fund for the presidential campaign of then president B.J. Habibie.

Many are concerned that the ruling in Djoko's case will be applied for others implicated in the scandal.

Among the suspects are Setya Novanto, another executive of PT EGP and a Golkar official, Pande Lubis of IBRA and Rudy Ramli of Bank Bali.

The World Bank questioned on Tuesday the decision and sought further clarification.

Teten said the public placed much hope in the court amid the drive to combat corruption, collusion and nepotism, locally known by the acronym KKN.

"Another institution which has authority to examine the ruling, including the judges, is the Supreme Court. But, the institution has been proven unable to deal with the reform demand," he said.

Abdul Hakim said it was a time for the country's legal apparatus to improve its poor image to restore confidence in law enforcement, especially for foreign observers.

He said it was not too late to put right the error of the ruling.

"In Djoko's case, the prosecutor should file an appeal, and the Supreme Court must soon review the ruling," he said. (asa/bsr)