Judge Rules Raudi Akmal's Corruption Suspect Status Invalid, Orders Release

The Sleman District Court judge has granted a pretrial motion regarding the suspect status of Raudi Akmal in a corruption case involving tourism grants for Sleman Regency in 2020. With this decision, the suspect status of the son of former Sleman Regent Sri Purnomo has been declared void. Single judge Ari Prabawa stated that the arrest and designation of Raudi as a suspect were legally invalid. “Considering that the pretrial judge is of the opinion that the arrest of the suspect by the pretrial respondent is unlawful,” Ari Prabawa said while reading the verdict at the Sleman District Court on Tuesday (28/7/2026). The judge ordered Raudi Akmal’s release from detention. This is a consequence of the annulment of the suspect status based on Article 163 paragraph (3) letter a of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. “The decision stipulates that the suspect designation is invalid, the investigator must release the suspect,” he said. The judge assessed that it was not the prosecutor’s detention that was the reason for the invalidity of Raudi Akmal’s suspect designation. According to the judge, the detention carried out by investigators at the Sleman District Prosecutor’s Office was in accordance with Article 100 of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code and there was no evidence of legal irregularities in the detention process. “Considering that this release of the suspect is not based on the legality of the detention carried out by the pretrial respondent, but because it is a legal order since the suspect designation was declared legally invalid,” he stated. Furthermore, after reviewing the detention warrant documents submitted by the pretrial applicant, namely the T18 Detention Order and the T2 Minutes of Detention Execution, linked to the investigator’s testimony in court, the judge declared that the detention the suspect had undergone remained lawful but was declared invalid by law. “Thus, the detention that the suspect has undergone remains lawful. However, because the suspect designation is declared legally invalid, the suspect or pretrial applicant must still be released from detention,” he said. According to Ari, the same logic applies to a verdict of acquittal for a defendant, where the defendant who is acquitted must be immediately released from detention. However, this does not mean that the detentions that have been served were unlawful. “If so, the petition number 5 regarding the illegality of the Detention Order must be rejected,” he said. Responding to the court’s decision, Raudi Akmal’s legal team stated that the prosecution’s actions were mistaken. “Alhamdulillah, there is still justice in the Republic of Indonesia regarding the suspect designation. From the beginning, we believed that what was carried out by the respondent (the Head of the Sleman District Prosecutor’s Office) was very wrong,” said Raudi Akmal’s lawyer, Soepriyadi. According to Soepriyadi, the Sleman District Prosecutor’s Office’s designation of Raudi as a suspect was procedurally flawed. “From the start, it was emphasised that this was procedurally flawed, not enforcing the law fairly as we have witnessed together. And it was proven in this trial, justice will always prevail,” he said. Regarding the procedural defect, Soepriyadi explained that the suspect designation appeared rushed. According to him, the designation did not comply with the principle of due process of law, which guarantees that every person is entitled to fair treatment, protection of human rights, and a lawful judicial process before the state can deprive them of their freedom, rights, or property. “In the consideration of the Yogyakarta Corruption Court’s decision, which we have heard together, it was stated that Raudi was not involved. The High Court upheld this,” he said. “This means the Yogyakarta Corruption Court judge has already said that Mas Raudi Akmal was not involved, but they still forced the suspect designation,” Soepriyadi added. Soepriyadi further noted that regarding the audit of state losses, based on the Constitutional Court’s decision, the authorised body is the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK). However, the evidence used in this case was an audit from the Yogyakarta Special Region’s Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP). “Secondly, the issue of the audit, from the beginning I have said there is no evidence. Because Article 603 is clear, there must be state losses to apply that article. It is very clear,” he said. “Now, based on the Constitutional Court’s decision, who is authorised to audit state finances? The BPK, that is clear. So, there is no BPK audit. What they used was still the BPKP audit,” Soepriyadi added. Soepriyadi also mentioned that his team would discuss further legal steps following the pretrial decision. “For the next steps, we will discuss with colleagues what efforts can be made. In essence, besides Mas Raudi, I am also the legal counsel for Pak Sri Purnomo, we will focus on the cassation issue,” he said. Previously, the Sleman District Prosecutor’s Office had named Sleman Regency DPRD member Raudi Akmal as a suspect in a case of alleged corruption involving tourism grants for Sleman Regency in 2020. Raudi was immediately detained and taken to the Yogyakarta Class II A Detention Centre or Wirogunan Prison. Raudi, the son of former Sleman Regent Sri Purnomo, was named a suspect after failing to attend two summons for examination by investigators. He only attended the third summons, where investigators immediately named him a suspect.