MUI Proposes Death Penalty for Corruptors, Yusril Says Judges Must Assess Appropriateness

Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra has responded to the Indonesian Ulema Council’s (MUI) proposal to impose the death penalty on corruptors. According to Yusril, capital punishment in Indonesia’s legal system is an ‘ultimum remedium’ or last resort that can only be imposed through a court ruling based on a public prosecutor’s demand. He explained that judges cannot simply hand down a death sentence; in every case, they must first ensure the charges are legally and convincingly proven based on the facts revealed during the trial. If proven, the judge imposes a sentence deemed most just and proportionate to the defendant’s actions and their impact on victims, the nation, and the state. ‘A judge’s ruling must be based on the principle of justice under the One Almighty God and considerations of conscience. A judge must not decide a case out of anger or hatred,’ Yusril said in a written statement on Thursday (6/8/2026).

Yusril explained that during his tenure as Minister of Justice, he initiated amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999, which became Law Number 20 of 2001. These changes added new provisions, including those on gratification, bribery of state officials, and extortion by officials, while retaining the threat of the death penalty for corruptors under certain circumstances. He elaborated that these circumstances, as referred to in Article 2 of the Anti-Corruption Law, include situations where the country is in a state of danger, a national natural disaster, repeat offences, or during an economic and monetary crisis. The same principle has been adopted in the new National Criminal Code. ‘Even if a prosecutor demands the death penalty and the law allows it, the judge is still obliged to consider whether the sentence is appropriate. After considering all circumstances, the judge may impose a life sentence instead,’ he added.

Responding to the MUI’s proposal, Yusril argued that the issue of corruption is not solely about the severity of criminal sanctions or the presence of law enforcement agencies. He noted that Indonesia already possesses all the necessary instruments, from laws with death penalty provisions to complete institutions such as the Police, Attorney General’s Office, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Corruption Courts in every province, and ad hoc anti-corruption judges at the Supreme Court. Yet, corruption persists, even among ordinary people and law enforcement officers themselves. ‘What is lacking is religious ethics based on the principle of Belief in the One Almighty God or tauhid in Islam. Why do religious rituals increase, but morality does not grow? Is there something wrong with our religious education, preaching, and sermons? Are they merely rituals that fail to touch the depths of the conscience, so people cannot distinguish between right and wrong?’ Yusril questioned.

Meanwhile, the MUI is urging the government and the House of Representatives to implement the death penalty for corruptors, citing public demand and the emergency level of corruption in Indonesia. ‘We are always discussing. Some time ago, Pak Yusril came to MUI to talk about two things: the death penalty and the LGBT law. We are continuously discussing,’ said MUI Deputy Chairperson KH M. Cholil Nafis. MUI emphasised that it maintains ongoing communication and discussion with the government regarding law enforcement, including severe sanctions for crimes that damage the state order. Kiai Cholil assessed that law enforcement must consider the common sense of justice and public opinion. When the public widely realises that corruption has destroyed the nation’s future and impoverished the people, the state cannot turn a blind eye. ‘The many arrests do not indicate success in eradicating corruption, but rather show failure, because people are not deterred,’ he explained. Responding to the public debate that often pits the death penalty against impoverishment, MUI believes both measures should run in parallel. Kiai Cholil explained that asset seizure is the state’s obligation to recover wealth stolen from the people. ‘So there is no dichotomy that the death penalty is applied without seizing assets. If they are executed, the state’s assets must be returned. Both are necessary: asset seizure, and if the crime causes systemic problems or national destruction, the death penalty must be imposed,’ he asserted.