Human rights activist takes firm line on corruption

Human rights activist takes firm line on corruption

It is no secret that corruption is a rampant practice in
Indonesia, inflicting huge losses to the state. Last month, a
number of people set up the Movement of Concerned Citizens on
State Assets (Gempita) in their effort to save the
misappropriated state assets. The Jakarta Post's T. Sima Gunawan
interviewed a member of the group, Baharuddin Lopa, who is also
Secretary General of National Commission of Human Rights.

JAKARTA (JP): People once only dared whisper about the reputed
staggering wealth of Soeharto and his family.

But the silence has ended on the public secret, accompanied by
a clamor of accusations the fortune was ill-gotten through
rampant corruption, collusion and nepotism.

The three misdeeds -- conveniently clumped under their
Indonesian initials KKN in public parlance -- have caused huge
losses to the state. A group of people founded the Movement of
Concerned Citizens on State Assets (Gempita) last month to try to
salvage some of what rightfully belongs to a people now quaking
in the terrible economic crisis.

A member is Baharuddin Lopa, secretary-general of the National
Commission on Human Rights.

Lopa was born in Mandar, South Sulawesi, in 1935, and
graduated in law from Hasanuddin University in Ujungpandang in
1962. He received his doctorate from Diponegoro University in
Semarang, Central Java.

He started his career as a prosecutor at the Ujungpandang
prosecutor's office in 1958. From 1982 to 1986, he was chief of
the South Sulawesi provincial prosecutor's office. Known for his
tough court demeanor, Lopa handled several corruption cases
involving billions of rupiah before he was transferred to the
Ministry of Justice. After serving as an expert staff at the
ministry for two years, he became director general of
correctional affairs (1988-1995).

Highly respected for his discipline and integrity, Lopa joined
the National Commission of Human Rights in 1993.

He talked with The Jakarta Post last week.

Question: Why did you set up Gempita?

Answer: It is to build moral strength in society and speed up
the collection of data on national assets which have been
misappropriated. We will collect data from the public and then
convey them to the Attorney General's Office.

We do not have any executive power, and Gempita is not
binding. Anyone can give the data directly to the Attorney
General's Office.

What has the public response been to Gempita?

The public has made a quick response. Gempita was established
on Friday evening (May 29), and at dawn the following day I had
already received two phone calls about state assets which were
misappropriated. I asked them to put it in writing and provide
the supporting data to Gempita's office (Jl. Mega Kuningan Barat
1, Jakarta 12950, Ph. 576-988, Fax. 576-0987).

I told my colleagues we have to be careful, we have to pay
attention to accuracy of the reports.

It is widely reported that Soeharto and his family have
misappropriated state assets. Is this why you set up Gempita?

Gempita does not deal with Soeharto only, but all state assets
which were stolen. Well, the reports (about Soeharto's wealth)
are one of the factors that made us establish Gempita. The focus
of our activities in Gempita will be based on the data we obtain
from the public.

Foreign reports said Soeharto and his family's wealth is worth
about US$40 billion.

We don't refer to the reports, but on the data from the
public.

Opposition leader Amien Rais said Soeharto should return his
wealth to the state. He also called on the people to "forgive"
him if he voluntarily donated 95 percent of his wealth.

In my opinion, whatever we do in Indonesia, we have to be on
the legal tract. So, whoever is involved (in corruption), he or
she must be handled in accordance with the law because Indonesia
respects the supremacy of law.

The solution (from Amien) is not in line with the law. If
there is an indication that one committed a crime, for example
corruption, the suspect must be tried and if found guilty, then
all of the wealth obtained from corruption must be confiscated
for the state.

If we settle things not in accordance with the law, this will
create legal uncertainty. This is not educative and dangerous. It
could encourage other people to commit corruption because they
are not prosecuted. It could become a bad precedent. Other
presidents (who are involved in corruption) will ask for the
same.

Later on, if he (Soeharto) is proven guilty but you really
take pity on him and you don't want him to stay behind bars,
there is another way. After his accountability is completed and
the wealth obtained illegally has been confiscated for the state,
the President (B.J. Habibie) can give him the pardon. So it is
like in South Korea -- after Kim Dae-Jung became president, he
pardoned the (jailed) former presidents (Chun Doo-Hwan and Roh
Tae-Woo).

And by doing so, there will be legal certainty for Soeharto.
If you release him right away after he gives the money -- without
any trial -- what is the legal basis? There is no legal certainty
for Soeharto. At anytime, he can be arrested again.

How about the call for a travel ban on Soeharto and his
family?

To impose the travel ban, the government doesn't need the
evidence (of crimes). If the government sees indications that
their traveling abroad could give them the chance to hide their
wealth or cause problems relating to the efforts to save the
state assets, the government can impose the travel ban.

How about their human rights?

We have the principle of presumption of innocence. Before they
are found guilty and before there is a court decision which has
fixed legal power, we should assume that they are not guilty.

What should we do first if we want to settle Soeharto's case
in accordance with the law?

We have to base it on the Criminal Code Procedures and our
legal officers must be ready to take necessary actions. People
will keep an eye on them.

Experience shows that it is not easy to prove corruption.

We need to improve our corruption law. Under the current law,
it is the prosecutors who should prove the charges. It is
necessary to shift the burden of proof to the defendants, so that
they will be required to prove that they are not guilty.

But with the law that we already have, if everybody works hard
and honestly, the results will be quite sufficient.

How do you see the honesty of our legal officers?

Honesty is a must. The government must improve the quality of
human resources. We need tough officers.

Even though the law is perfect, if the officers are not ready
and they are not tough, there won't be any sufficient
achievements. Officials who are not qualified must be replaced.
I don't have to mention names.

You earlier said that you will convey the data about
misappropriated state assets to the Attorney General's Office.
But experience shows that the authorities do not follow up your
findings on certain cases, such as those on Marsinah (a labor
activist murdered in 1993) and the tragic incidents related to
the takeover of the Indonesian Democratic Party's headquarters
from Megawati Soekarnoputri in 1996.

Gempita does not have the authority to investigate the case,
to confiscate the wealth and to detain the corruptors. That's the
authority of the police and prosecutors. We only give them the
data, but I think this will help them.

If the government does not follow up on our reports ... don't
ask me. I can't give the answer, I am not within the system. You
must ask the attorney general or the President.

Now that the situation has changed, will you put pressure on
the government to follow up on your previous findings?

They probably did not follow up our findings and froze the
cases because of psychological burdens. Now that the burden has
been lifted, there is no reason to cover them up.

There has been a strong demand to probe Soeharto's wealth only
after he resigned. Can't we probe an incumbent president's
wealth?

Of course we can. The law says so. Any suspect, whatever his
or her position, can be examined. But in the past, people were
afraid.

Were you afraid?

Of course not. I investigated many corruption cases when I was
a prosecutor in Ujungpandang. But then I was transferred to
Jakarta and become director general of correctional affairs. I
was given a higher rank, I become a first echelon official, but I
had less power, I could not prosecute people.

You were a prosecutor for a long time. You must know how
difficult it is to handle a corruption case. What are the main
obstructions?

In my case, it was not that difficult because I did not
discuss beforehand with the central office (the Attorney
General's Office). I know that if I discussed it first there
would be a lot of problems.

Are you saying the Attorney General's Office did not have the
political will to combat corruption?

Maybe they have it now.

You were stripped of your post as a prosecutor in the 1980s.
Do you see any change in the current situation?

Things should be improved. It is important to have tough
officers. And there should not be too much interference (from the
Attorney General's Office). If there are good officers, let them
handle the cases by themselves thoroughly. Give them freedom to
work.

We need to improve both the law and the quality of legal
officers. If we have not been able to improve the law, at least
the quality of the people must be improved so that they can do
their jobs well.

How did you become a member of the Human Rights Commission?

When the committee was established (in 1993) Soeharto
appointed (former chief justice) Ali Said as the chairman and
then Ali Said made a list of the members. I was included in the
list. He then gave the list to Soeharto for approval. Soeharto
did not have any reason to reject my presence in the committee.
Maybe he thought the committee had no teeth and that I would not
be able to make any arrests.

How do you see the rampant practices of corruption, collusion
and nepotism here?

These have taken place for a long time. To avoid such
practices, there are two things to be done. First, one should not
be in power for quite a long time. Second, don't accumulate the
power.

How long is the appropriate time to hold power?

For a president, two terms is the longest one.

What is your comment on Habibie?

Let him work first. He said he would make a new law on
elections. What's important is that you have pull the root,
Soeharto.

But people said Habibie is part of the root.

Well, it's difficult, there are too many parts, but what's
important is to let him work until the end of the election. He
has set the date and promised a fair election. He has to prove
his words.