Lawyers call indictment 'manipulative'

Lawyers call indictment 'manipulative'

JAKARTA (JP): Lawyers of a warden being tried for allegedly
helping a business tycoon to escape from prison last May called
the prosecutor's indictment "manipulative" in court yesterday.

"Responsibility for the escape of Eddy Tansil should be
shouldered collectively by those in charge of the prison, not on
the defendant himself, who only carried out orders from his
superior," lawyer Arief Susijamto, a member of the team of
lawyers from the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, told the East
Jakarta District Court.

He said the prosecutor's indictment was manipulative because
it did not demand that the commandant of the prison guards
and the penitentiary's chief warden be held responsible for the
incident.

Prison warden DH, alias Dudung, was commandant of the jail's
third platoon of guards who allegedly received a Rp 1 million
bribe from Tansil.

Eddy Tansil's escape from the Cipinang penitentiary was
allegedly assisted by five prison employees.

The four other defendants, MH, Mar, Soep and SM are being
tried separately in the same court. They are all being charged
under Article 419 of the Criminal Code and the 1971
Anticorruption Law.

Dudung's team of lawyers also said that the indictment was
unclear because it did not explain how the prosecutor concluded
that Tansil had escaped. The lawyers said the explanation was a
crucial point to prosecute their client.

"We deem it necessary that the prosecutor demand an
explanation from the Cipinang penitentiary's chief warden,
because Eddy Tansil was under his supervision," Arief told the
court presided over by Judge Soenarto.

Tansil, owner of the Golden Key Group, was sentenced to 20
years in August 1994 for defrauding Bank Pembangunan Indonesia
(Bapindo) of US$640 million. It was the biggest bank fraud in
Indonesian banking history.

Dudung's lawyers also questioned the use of the 1971
Anticorruption Law in the indictment because the bribe amounted
only to a tip and did not go along with the "enriching oneself"
clause.

"Even bigger cases of corruption in the country revealed
recently by the Development and Finance Comptroller are not
followed up seriously by the related authorities, including
prosecutors," the team said.

Article 419 states that any government employee who accepts a
gift while knowing that it is intended to influence his or her
work is liable to five years imprisonment, while those who are
found guilty of violating the 1971 Law could face a maximum 20-
year prison term and a Rp 30 million fine.

Judge Soenarto adjourned the court until Sep. 23.

Meanwhile, the same court also heard the prosecutor's reply to
a rebuttal from lawyers of another prison warden, MH.

Prosecutor Azizul Hakim maintained his earlier indictment that
the defendant could be charged under Article 419 of the Criminal
Code and the 1971 Anticorruption Law.

In their rebuttal, MH's lawyers had earlier asked the court to
drop the charges against their client, arguing that the 1971
Anticorruption Law could not be applied in their client's case.

The hearing on the other prison warden, SM, was adjourned
until next week. (26)