Judge's murder sends 'message of terror' to law enforcers

The blatant manner in which the shooting of Justice M. Syafiuddin Kartasasmita took place was intended to send a "message of terror" to law enforcers who have only recently rediscovered their courage, according to Heru Susetyo Nuswanto. The director of the Center for Legal and Human Rights Advocacy (PAHAM) here reveals the findings of the center's own investigation into the murder.

Question: Why have you taken up this case and launched your own investigation?

Answer: The ball is, of course, in the police's court as they're the ones with the authority to cordon off the scene, remove the victim, question witnesses. Our own probe so far has revealed almost the same material as the media has published, but there are some things that we find odd.

For instance, it's strange that (the media) so readily linked the murder with Tommy (Hutomo Mandala Putra, former president Soeharto's youngest son) because the Supreme Court's verdict in his case was handed down last December. Following that ruling, up to now, the justice and his family have not received any threats in relation to the case.

What's interesting was that before the verdict was made, Tommy did contact Syafiuddin. In fact, the two of them met...

Q: They met?

A: They met at a place I cannot disclose, but whatever transpired during that meeting, the Supreme Court decided to reject Tommy's appeal and sent him to prison.

(Soeharto's erstwhile golfing buddy) Bob Hasan, too, tried to have a meeting with Syafiuddin before the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. Syafiuddin refused to meet him and told his wife, Sa'imah, who happens to be a prosecutor, about the attempt to influence him.

Another of our findings identified a mistake in the media reporting; Syafiuddin was not the justice in charge of the case of Joko S. Chandra. His position as the junior justice in charge of general crimes in the Supreme Court meant that all cases came into his department, but he did not handle that particular case himself. Therefore, the reports linking his shooting with the Joko S. Chandra case was rather strange.

Q: What else have you found?

A: The media reported that (despite the fact that the gunmen fired several times) there was only one fatal shot (in addition to two other shots that might not have been fatal) that killed him. A brother of Syafiuddin said he found 5 wounds in the victim's body.

Police have questioned the family members but so far I don't think the police have found any reason to focus their investigation on them.

Q: You said that after the Supreme Court's verdict in the Tommy case, the family had not received any threats. What about the period before the ruling?

A: Yes, actually, Syafiuddin's family received most threats during the Court's hearing of Tommy's case. They were at the time living in Bogor and often received telephone death threats. They also often found unidentified cars circling or passing their house. This continued until the verdict was issued and then it suddenly stopped.

But 2 days before the shooting, the family's domestic helper saw a Kijang van parked outside their house (which is now in Sunter, North Jakarta). It was dark already, so the maid didn't know for sure what color or make the car was.

On the day of the shooting itself, a family member received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as Halim, a former colleague of Syafiuddin and a good friend. The caller asked whether Syafiuddin had left the house for work. It's strange because the family said it was not Halim's voice. Half an hour later, the shooting took place.

Q: What is the purpose of your investigation?

A: We cannot believe the shooting was a pure crime. We decided to get involved because the shooting could not be anything else but related to the campaign against corruption and nepotism in big business.

The victim's wife said Syafiuddin did not have many enemies, but still we cannot accept the notion that this was a pure crime. Even though we find it strange that the victim had received no threats after the ruling on Tommy, the suspicion is indeed there.

Q: The shooting took place in such dramatic circumstances. Why do you think this was?

A: I believe that it was a warning. Witnesses described how the gunmen fired, started to flee, then returned and shot (the victim again) while one of them threatened bystanders by shooting in the air.

This can be nothing but an attempt to strike terror into the hearts of law enforcers. Remember how in recent years our judges have become tougher, for instance, on drug trafficking cases by handing down the death penalty.

Whoever did this was saying that when a justice can be shot dead like that, no one is safe. They're trying to instill once again the tradition of terror in our country. Maybe it's also something political, linked to the fact that our country has just elected a new administration.

It's like they're saying that whatever (President) Megawati and (Vice President) Hamzah Haz stand for, the newly rediscovered courage of our law enforcers to fight crime, especially corruption, will be sapped. We have for the past few years been enjoying a new sense of freedom, and whoever did this was saying that they are going to fight it.

As you know, a number of other justices have also reported receiving threats.

Q: Do you see any possible connection between the shooting and the change in national leadership?

A: We have to admit that whatever else (deposed president) Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid) stood for, he can be credited with creating a climate that was conducive for empowering the law enforcers -- like (the late Attorney General) Baharuddin Lopa.

Under his administration, some judges got greater courage to fight crime. As I have said, some even dared to hand down the death penalty against drug traffickers whereas in the past those criminals would have only received between two or three years in jail.

The sad thing is, despite the good being done by some brave judges, many are indeed unscrupulous people. A former justice said that 20 percent of all judges in Indonesia are corrupt. These judges and law enforcers, as well as many other people, would, of course, hate to see clean law enforcement. (Santi W.E. Soekanto)