Kerry Riza's Legal Team Protests Delayed Court Decision Copy, Hampering Appeal Rights
Jakarta – The legal counsel for Muhamad Kerry Adrianto Riza, beneficial owner of PT Orbit Terminal Merak (OTM), Heru Widodo, has raised concerns about the failure to issue an official copy of the first-instance court judgment from the Central Jakarta Corruption Court (Tipikor).
Although Riza’s judgment was delivered by the judicial panel on Thursday and Friday, 26-27 February 2026, the official copy remains unpublished after two weeks. Widodo stated that this delay could potentially obstruct the justice process Kerry Riza intends to pursue through appellate proceedings.
“But it’s been two weeks and the official copy of the judgment has never been issued. We ask almost every day, and the registrar says it’s still with the panel. How much longer before we can obtain the copy?” Heru said during a press conference in the Kuningan area, Central Jakarta, on Thursday, 12 March 2026.
According to Heru, the matter is problematic because the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) came into effect on 2 January 2026, establishing time limits for filing appeals. His team filed a notice of appeal on 5 March. Under the new regulations, there is a seven-day deadline for submitting an appeal memorandum following the filing of the notice of appeal.
“Are we to be deprived of justice that we have already experienced through such methods? By deliberately delaying the official publication of the copy?” Heru stated firmly.
Heru’s assertion demonstrates practices prejudicial to his client, as the delayed issuance of the official copy has forced Kerry’s legal team to prepare the appeal memorandum solely on the basis of their own documented notes and court recordings.
“The appeal memorandum we prepared is limited to our capacity as humans to record on our own initiative through audio-visual recordings, which we have also published on the YouTube channel of Kerry’s, Dimas’s and Gading’s Legal Advisory Team. That is our limitation,” he said.
Heru further stressed that if there are discrepancies in the content of the official copy, this would clearly prejudice his client. Such a situation would raise serious questions about who bears responsibility for the injustice that has occurred.
“Perhaps the copy will be issued later with different content. Who will be responsible for such injustice?” Heru added.
Additionally, Heru criticised the Public Prosecutor’s appeal filing, which he contends has not been accompanied by an appeal memorandum within the prescribed timeframe.