Justice, or power politics?

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.