Justice, or power politics?

Nobody -- as yet -- questions the integrity of the newly appointed Attorney General Baharuddin Lopa. It is no exaggeration to say that he remains to this moment one of the very few Indonesians to start office with a spotless reputation of honesty and dedication in the upholding of the law. And yet it seems that less than a month since his installation that reputation has begun to wear.

Certainly, there are still enough Indonesians, both within the legal profession and outside it, who are putting their hopes in Lopa of seeing a more just Indonesia emerge within their own lifetime. Both Albert Hasibuan, who is chairman of the Movement of Concerned Citizens on State Assets (Gempita) and Frans Hendrawinata, a practicing lawyer and a member of the National Law Commission, share the optimism that Lopa was the right man in the right place for apprehending corruptors.

Others, such as University of Indonesia legal expert Harkristuti Harkrisnowo who, along with Frans, is a member of the National Law Commission, expressed the view that under the circumstances it was difficult not to suspect a political motive behind the Attorney General's current action.

As has been widely reported, Attorney General Baharuddin Lopa recently reopened a number of high-profile corruption cases that his predecessor, Marzuki Darusman, had already ordered closed due to lack of evidence. Among those cases are ones against House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung, Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle legislator Arifin Panigoro, and Nurdin Halid, tycoons Sjamsul Nursalim, Prajogo Pangestu and Sinivasan Marimutu.

Of these cases, the ones against Akbar Tandjung and Arifin Panigoro have grabbed the most attention, as far as the public at large is concerned. And for one obvious reason. Both Akbar and Arifin have been at the forefront of moves within the House of Representatives -- the "lower house" of the Indonesian legislature -- to have the People's Consultative Assembly, or the "upper house", call a special session, which could lead to the impeachment of President Abdurrahman Wahid.

It could be the unfortunate timing of Lopa's reopening of those cases that has kindled suspicion that political motives in favor of President Abdurrahman were behind the move. Yet, as skeptics have pointed out, there are many other, equally urgent or more urgent cases which the Attorney General could have concentrated on, instead of going after two of President Abdurrahman's most vocal and damaging critics. As many people are aware, public prosecutors or attorneys, who are all under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General's Office, are not particularly well-known for their dedication to the cause of justice. Indeed, the Attorney General's Office itself, as well as its personnel, are believed to be in need of some drastic scrutiny.

Many Indonesians also seem to be wondering why so little attention has been paid to cases of human rights violations. News reports from the provinces have convinced many, both inside and outside Indonesia, that gross human rights violations have certainly occurred in Aceh, Maluku, East Timor and elsewhere. Even in the national capital Jakarta, long-standing cases seem to have been forgotten or have been put on the back burner. For political reasons? It may be the pervasive climate of mistrust and suspicion that is causing Indonesians to wonder what Lopa's real motives might be. Or perhaps, as President Abdurrahman Wahid told reporters in Canberra, it may just be because "everything in Indonesia is slow."

We, for our part, would very much prefer to believe, as the Attorney General told a House commission recently, that there is absolutely no political motive behind his current moves. The national ambition of building a just and prosperous Indonesia stands or falls with the judiciary as the last bulwark of justice. Baharuddin Lopa must prove, and do so within the time at his disposal, that the people have not been misled in placing their trust in him.