Ibrahim Arief's Legal Team: 22.5-Year Prison Demand Inconsistent with Indictment and Evidence
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA – Ibrahim Arief’s (Ibam) legal team views the 22.5-year prison sentence demanded in the Chromebook procurement case as lacking a strong legal foundation. Ibam’s side considers the prosecutors’ demand to contradict the facts of the trial.
Ibam’s camp believes the demand submitted is not consistently structured with the indictment letter. They refer to Article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) of 1981 and Article 232 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP of 2020, which emphasise that the indictment letter must be built consistently with the indictment.
“The indictment is the basis and limit of the case examination. All analyses in the demand must not exceed what has been indicted. However, in this case, the figure of Rp16.9 billion has emerged, which was never in the indictment,” said Ibrahim Arief’s lawyer, R. Bayu Perdana, on Tuesday (21/4/2026).
Bayu highlighted the prosecutor’s statement that the demand related to alleged self-enrichment did not arise suddenly. According to him, the figure was never in the indictment or proven in the trial.
“The prosecutor stated they did not suddenly demand that Ibam enriched himself. However, the fact is, the Rp16.9 billion figure was never in the indictment and was never proven in the trial,” Bayu said.
Bayu assessed there is a fundamental error regarding the burden of proof. According to him, in corruption criminal cases, the obligation to prove remains with the public prosecutor.
“It is not true that the defendant is burdened to prove he did not enrich himself,” said Ibam.
In addition, Bayu highlighted a striking disparity in the demands. Ibrahim Arief, whom Bayu claims did not receive any fund flows, is demanded more than twice as much as officials who have authority and are said to have received fund flows.
“This needs to be criticised together. What is the basis for such a wide difference in demands against someone who is not proven to have received money at all?” Bayu said.
In line with that, another lawyer, Frizolla Putri, stated that after a long trial process presenting more than 50 witnesses, no evidence was found showing her client’s involvement in the acts as accused.
“There is no fund flow, no concrete evidence. Yet our client is still demanded 15 years in prison and replacement money of Rp16.9 billion based only on allegations,” Frizolla said.
Frizolla hopes the panel of judges can make an objective decision based on the trial facts.
“We believe the Panel of Judges can view this case with a clear conscience and deliver the fairest possible verdict,” she said.