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.