Legal Expert Deems Google's Online Testimony in Chromebook Trial Non-Compliant with Procedure
The conduct of the trial in the alleged corruption case regarding the procurement of Chromebooks, with defendant Nadiem Makarim, which featured three witnesses from Google appearing online, has sparked controversy. The witnesses’ apparent reluctance to coordinate with local authorities and their tendency to cast negative narratives against Indonesian law enforcement are seen as damaging to courtroom ethics.
Legal expert Fajar Trio emphasised that, beyond procedural issues, there is a severe criminal risk if the witnesses’ statements are found to contradict field facts.
Moreover, he reminded that positive law in Indonesia imposes strict penalties on witnesses who provide false testimony under oath. This is explicitly regulated in Article 242 of the Criminal Code.
“If those three Google witnesses are proven to have given false testimony, they face a maximum prison sentence of seven years. If the false testimony harms the defendant in a criminal case, the penalty could increase to nine years in prison,” Fajar told reporters on Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
According to him, the narrative that the Attorney General’s Attaché in Singapore was uncooperative must be materially proven.
“If that is merely an alibi to avoid official coordination procedures, then the prosecutor can request the judge to designate them as suspects for providing false testimony right then and there,” he added.
Furthermore, Fajar urged the Panel of Judges to act vigilantly by conducting thorough observations as stipulated in Article 235 in conjunction with Article 237 paragraph (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under these provisions, judges are obliged to examine the truthfulness of witness statements by assessing their consistency with other evidence.
“Judges must perform judicial observation. In accordance with Article 237 paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, judges must check whether the Google witnesses’ statements align with documentary evidence, leads, or other witnesses’ testimonies already presented. If it stands alone and contradicts valid evidence from state authorities, then the testimony must be set aside,” Fajar explained.
He also highlighted the importance of judges examining the social status relationship between the witnesses and the defendant.
“Judges need to see if there is an employment relationship, professional dependency, or ongoing business interests between these Google witnesses and Nadiem Makarim. This status relationship greatly influences the objectivity of their testimony,” he said.