In defense of justice

In defense of justice

Is the ax is about to fall on Adi Andojo Soetjipto, the deputy
chief justice for criminal affairs who has been waging a lone
crusade against collusion in the Supreme Court? On Friday,
Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono, confirming rumors of a move
by Chief Justice Soerjono to have Adi removed, said President
Soeharto has received a letter from the chief justice requesting
that Justice Adi be discharged. The President, Moerdiono said, is
"seriously studying" the request.

The 1985 law on the Supreme Court indeed empowers the
President to discharge, honorably or otherwise, members of the
court at the chief justice's recommendation. The grounds for
termination may be at the request of the justice concerned, or
because of age (65 years old), physical illness, or an inability
to carry out duties.

At this stage, it is not clear which of these reasons were
cited by Chief Justice Soerjono in his letter, but we can clearly
rule out own request, age and physical illness because Justice
Adi has not voiced a desire to step down, he is 64-years old and
judging by his many recent public appearances, he is healthy.
Moerdiono clearly stated that the request was for an honorable
discharge rather than dishonorable as earlier rumors suggested.

Whatever reasons cited by Soerjono and the nature of the
request, there is no doubt in anybody's mind of what lies behind
the move: the row over possible collusion in the Supreme Court.
Justices Soerjono and Adi, perhaps the two most senior and
respected serving judges in the country today, do not see eye to
eye on the issue.

Justice Adi was not satisfied with the way the chief justice
dealt with his complaint about alleged collusion in the court.
Insisting that collusion is rife, he warned that the reputation
and integrity of the court is at stake and demanded that
something be done at once.

Justice Soerjono commissioned an investigation into a
particular possible collusion case which was raised by Justice
Adi, and announced last month that there was not sufficient
evidence to support the allegation. He then declared the case
closed, ignoring Justice Adi's protest about the way the
investigation was conducted. Later he ordered Justice Adi to
desist in his allegations because by continuing and campaigning
for action through the media, he was undermining the integrity of
the court. The chief also threatened him with disciplinary
action.

The public has become privy to an internal row in the
traditionally tight-lipped Supreme Court. This is not the first
time that allegations of corruption and collusion in the Supreme
Court have been heard. What made this case different is that the
allegations were made by an insider, a very senior and respected
figure in the court, making the allegations far more credible
than any previous allegations.

There is indeed a strong case to be made that the Supreme
Court, being the last bastion of justice, should not be tainted
lest it lose public respect and trust. The judges serving in the
court were all selected from the best in the legal system, all
supposedly with good track records. But judges are human beings,
with all their frailties, and the court therefore is not a sacred
institution totally immune from public scrutiny.

At a time when the country is striving to strengthen its legal
system, which is a prerequisite to democracy, introspection by
the courts, from the lowest to the highest, is essential. Justice
Adi's move to cleanup the Supreme Court should be seen in this
context. It would be a tragic loss, not only for the Supreme
Court, but also for the nation and democracy, if the request to
discharge Justice Adi was approved. His actions may be unorthodox
and could undermine public trust in the Supreme Court, but if
that is what it takes to clean up the court, then so be it. Only
then can the court gain the trust and respect it is due.