Judiciary system untouched by political reform

Judiciary system untouched by political reform

The controversial decision by a Jakarta district court earlier
this week to free a suspect linked to a major corruption case has
angered many legal observers. Corporate lawyer T. Mulya Lubis
urges an immediate overhaul of Jakarta's courts and the dismissal
of all bad judges.

Question: How do you see the South Jakarta District Court's
decision earlier this week to drop all charges against
businessman Djoko S. Tjandra?

Answer: The decision to free the main suspect in the high-
profile Bank Bali scandal was a fatal one. It was a setback (for
justice) and a deadly blow to the government's efforts to revamp
the legal system. This shows that our judiciary has not been
touched by political reform.

Judges work under their profession's immunity, but does
immunity equal impunity? This is a key question because the work
of the judges has for 30 years been widely suspected of (being
tainted by) extreme corruption, hence the term "court mafia".
This kind of work has been carried out with unlimited impunity,
similar to that of the military which was untouchable throughout
all those years.

It is time to break up once and for all the iron chain of
impunity. It is as if the judges have no one to control them. Who
guards the guardians?

Isn't criticism of the judiciary an old song?

It is true, but the criticism has been overturned by the
judges' doctrine of autonomy. The judiciary turns out to be the
hardest to bend compared to the two other pillars of politics.
Foreign investors have never wanted their disputes settled in the
courts. This has been so for a long time.

You said the South Jakarta court's decision was a fatal one,
why is that?

The prosecutor's indictment was based on criminal law in which
Tjandra and his accomplices were accused of robbing the state's
coffers. He made a cessie contract between PT Era Giat Prima
(EGP), of which he is an executive, and Bank Bali to help the
bank recoup a huge sum of money in interbank claims on closed
banks under the control of the Indonesian Bank Restructuring
Agency (IBRA).

But apart from the contract EGP did nothing else, since it was
Bank Bali itself which eventually collected the money from Bank
Indonesia and transferred Rp 546 billion (US$73.7 million) out of
Rp 904 billion to EGP. The cessie contract was by then already
declared illegal by IBRA.

If judges failed to fairly respond to such a widely publicized
case as Bank Bali, no foreign investor will want to invest in
Indonesia. This is what I call a fatal decision, which is also an
act of sabotage against President Abdurrahman Wahid's tireless
efforts to bring back foreign investors to Indonesia.

What can be done to revamp the judiciary?

Investigate all the judges suspected of abusing their power.
Former deputy chief justice Adi Andojo said a few years back he
suspected foul play in a Supreme Court decision implicating
another chief justice.

We can start from here and clean the Jakarta district courts
of bad judges because the capital is the main gateway to
Indonesia. Businesses come through Jakarta, most business
disputes are in Jakarta.

A total revamp of Jakarta's district courts is therefore a
prerequisite. It is time to substitute all the bad judges in
Jakarta with ones with integrity. Otherwise, Jakarta will become
a bad dream for foreign investors.

Is there anything that can be done to overturn the
controversial South Jakarta District Court decision?

We can still correct the indictment in the case. But I also
urge an overall assessment of the quality of past controversial
court decisions which disturbed the public's conscience,
including the decision on Tjandra.

There were numerous such cases in the past, among them cases
involving Beddu Amang, Gelael, Tommy Soeharto, Rudy Ramli. Why?
Because this is a disinvestment to Indonesia. The assessments
should be carried out by people with integrity, not from the
circle of judges but from academia, say three law professors from
noted universities and two legal professionals.

They should be tasked to look for any absurdities in
controversial court decisions.

How do you see the resistance to a candidate nominated by
President Abdurrahman to head the Supreme Court?

IKAHI (Association of Indonesian Judges)'s rejection of a
nominee who is an outsider demonstrates the Supreme Court's
attitude toward legal reform. This is a dangerous attitude
bordering on oligarchy, which is contrary to the practice in many
other countries.

In Europe, judges come from the academic world and the circle
of legal professionals. They have rich knowledge and experience
and becoming a judge is an honor and recognition. Being a justice
is the apex of one's achievements. Here, becoming a judge is part
of the career path. Therefore, a judge's integrity and capacity
is often questionable.

What about punishment for bad judges, given the sorry state of
the judiciary over the last 30 years?

There is almost none. A few judges were either dropped or
moved to other places in the 1980s. But that was about all. And
this is in a country which has one of the highest rates of
judicial corruption, according to Transparency International. One
can only imagine what kind of picture one will get in a country
where a judge being tried or punished is virtually unheard of.
(hbk)