Legal Expert Warns of Dangers of Extrajudicial Opinion Interference in Chromebook Case
Legal expert Fajar Trio has highlighted the trial process in the alleged corruption case concerning the procurement of Chromebook laptops, which implicates former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Nadiem Makarim. He assesses that various narratives have recently emerged on social media attempting to deconstruct the legal aspects of the case, which he believes could potentially damage the judicial order.
Fajar spotlighted the prevalence of publications that appear to act as judges outside the courtroom. According to him, efforts to build the opinion that the defendant’s actions were purely corporate without criminal violation are inappropriate while the proof process is still underway.
“It is highly unethical if parties, especially those not experts in criminal law, attempt to dictate public opinion as if this matter is already final in substance. We must respect the sub judice principle. We must not allow a trial by press that damages the judge’s independence in seeking material truth,” Fajar stated when contacted on Wednesday (8/4/2026).
Fajar responded to points in social media narratives claiming that business instruments such as debt-to-equity swaps or stock splits cannot be criminalised. In his view, in Indonesian criminal corruption law, any financial technique can serve as an entry point for criminal liability if malicious intent or mens rea is found.
“Criminal law does not merely look at the shell of the transaction. Whether it is a stock split or other financial engineering, if behind it is found malicious intent to benefit oneself or others by abusing authority, then the criminal element is fulfilled,” Fajar explained.
He emphasised that the presence of mens rea (malicious intent) is what is being tested in court. Claiming a transaction is “legal in business” without examining the underlying process is a misleading simplification.
“Law enforcement is based on legal facts revealed in the trial. We must not get trapped in mere administrative narratives. If there is a malicious agreement under the table before the transaction occurs, its status remains a criminal act of corruption,” he asserted.
Regarding narratives linking law enforcement to a decline in investment enthusiasm, Fajar offered sharp criticism. He views the investment excuse as not to be used as a shield or immunity for anyone suspected of harming state finances.
“The state must not remain silent merely because of fears that investments will be disrupted. Healthy investment requires legal certainty and a clean environment free from corruption. If there is real state loss due to procurement deviations, the law must be upheld without favour,” Fajar said.
Fajar also emphasised that validation of state loss is the domain of expert witnesses in court, not social media content. “The Constitutional Court ruling indeed requires real loss or actual loss, but its determination lies with BPK or BPKP audits tested before the judge. Building public opinion to steer views that there is no state loss before the verdict is a form of harassment of the ongoing legal process,” he concluded.
BPKP auditor Dedy Nurmawan Susilo stated that the state has suffered a real loss of Rp1.5 trillion in the Chromebook procurement corruption case involving Nadiem Makarim.
Non-compliance with points conveyed by JPN is not merely a technical issue, but a failure in state administrative governance.
The trial took place at the Corruption Court of the Central Jakarta District Court today, Monday (30/3/2026), with the agenda of examining experts from the public prosecutor (JPU).