Minister attacks justice advocates

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Many critics condemning a reversal of the burden of proof for corruption cases were those who had participated in construction of the web of corruption during the New Order regime, Minister of Defense Mahfud MD said here on Saturday.

Mahfud, in his capacity as a legal expert, told reporters on the sidelines of a lecture at the Gadjah Mada University's school of law, that people had voiced their opposition to the arrest of Ginandjar Kartasasmita's for corruption out of fears of being brought to justice for their own wrongdoings in the past.

"Corrupt politicians and officials have joined hands to go against government policy and accuse the government of exploiting the legal procedures as part of a political game to stab its rivals," he said.

Mahfud cited as an example the arrest of People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) deputy speaker Ginandjar, which many politicians branded as a political maneuver rather than a legitimate legal action.

"When Soeharto was still president, many figures, including Amien Rais, had detected Ginandjar's corrupt actions in various large projects, such as the Freeport mining project in Irian Jaya. However, when President Abdurrahman Wahid had Ginandjar arrested many 'reformists' and political leaders joined the chorus to defend Ginandjar," he said.

Mahfud warned that political rivalry could terminate the implementation of the reform agenda's objective to uphold legal supremacy. He said government efforts to fight corruption were frequently blocked by attacks from the government's political rivals.

"How could they suddenly oppose something they themselves advocated in the past?" he said.

Mahfud suggested that all parties unite to fight corruption, which was the legacy of the New Order regime.

"They should not be confused between political maneuvers and efforts to eradicate corruption," he said. "Law enforcement is at stake. In the future we may regret the failure to enforce the law merely due to chronic political quarrels."

Mahfud, known as one of President Abdurrahman's close aides, however, regretted the President's sluggishness in ordering an investigation into alleged corruption involving three businessman: Sinivasan, Prajogo Pangestu and Syamsul Nur Salim.

"The President had no reason to suspend legal proceedings against the three tycoons."

In Jakarta, lawyers defending alleged corruptors welcomed the government's proposal to introduce a regulation on the shifting of the burden of proof, but warned of the possible abuse of people's basic rights.

Mohamad Assegaf, who is also an MPR member, said the shift of the burden of proof should be regulated in a law and not just in a government regulation, in lieu of the law.

"I think all of us gladly welcome the implementation of the shift of the burden of proof. But such a new legal principle, which concerns the public interest, should be regulated by a law, deliberated by the House of Representatives.

"The government should not impose an emergency regulation because it could raise suspicions that its introduction has been used as a political tool by Gus Dur (Abdurrahman's nickname) to attack his opponents," Assegaf told The Jakarta Post on Sunday.

Assegaf said the new system would not disadvantage the accused as it was aimed at upholding the law and that legislators have already anticipated the possibility that the system may violate other legal principles.

"There will be regulations where the rights of the accused are protected. The prosecutors should first prove the accused as guilty before a court and then the judges give the defendant a chance to prove his or her innocence," he said.

Denny Kailimang, chairman of the Indonesian Advocates Association, said the law on the shifting of the burden of proof should be imposed for specific corruption cases, such as bribery and receiving gifts from state officials.

"However, it doesn't mean that when a state official obtains a new luxury car the state prosecutors can immediately ask them to disclose how they got the car.

"Such measures can only be taken, after a case that implicates the state official, has been submitted to the prosecutors." (44/bby)