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

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)