MUI Pushes for Death Penalty for Corruptors, Yusril Says It's Already Regulated by Law

Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra has responded to the Indonesian Ulema Council’s (MUI) push for the death penalty for corruptors. Yusril stated that the death penalty in the national criminal justice system is an ultimum remedium, the most severe punishment that a court can impose upon the demand of a public prosecutor.

Yusril initially said that in deciding a case, a judge must first assess whether the charges are legally and convincingly proven based on the facts revealed in the trial. If proven, he said, the judge imposes a sentence deemed most fair and proportionate to the defendant’s actions and their impact on the victims, the nation, and the state.

“The judge’s decision must be based on the preamble ‘For the Sake of Justice Based on Belief in the One and Only God’ and considerations of conscience. A judge must not decide a case based on anger or hatred. As stated in the Qur’an, ‘Be upholders of justice… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness’ (al-Maidah 8),” Yusril said in a written statement on Thursday (6/8/2026).

Yusril explained that during his tenure as Minister of Justice, he took the initiative to amend Law Number 31 of 1999, which later became Law Number 20 of 2001. The amendment added several new provisions, including those on gratuities, bribery of state officials, and extortion by officials, while retaining the threat of the death penalty for corruptors under certain circumstances.

He explained that the specific circumstances referred to in Article 2 of the Corruption Eradication Law include a state of national emergency, national natural disasters, recidivism, and economic and monetary crises. The same principle has also been adopted in the new National Criminal Code.

“Even if the prosecutor demands the death penalty and the law allows it, the judge must still consider whether the sentence is appropriate to impose. It is possible that after considering all circumstances, the judge may impose a sentence of life imprisonment instead,” he added.

Responding to the MUI’s proposal, Yusril opined that the issue of corruption is not solely about the severity of criminal threats or the existence of law enforcement agencies. According to him, Indonesia already possesses all the necessary instruments, from laws to complete institutions, including the death penalty threat in the Corruption Law, law enforcement agencies such as the Police, the Attorney General’s Office, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Corruption Courts in every province, and ad hoc corruption judges at the Supreme Court. Yet, he noted, corruption continues to be committed by ordinary people, law enforcement officers such as police, prosecutors, and judges, and even a Minister of Religious Affairs.

“What is lacking is religious ethics based on the principle of Belief in the One and Only God, or tauhid in Islam. Why are religious rituals increasing, yet morality is not growing? Is there something wrong with religious education, preaching, and sermons so far? Is it merely ritual that has not touched the depths of the conscience, so that one cannot distinguish between right and wrong?” Yusril pondered.

MUI’s Statement

The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) is urging the government and the House of Representatives (DPR RI) to implement the death penalty for corruptors. In addition to accommodating the urgent aspirations of the public, this is seen as a firm legal measure given that corruption in Indonesia has reached an emergency level and become a widespread topic of discussion.

“We are always in discussion. Some time ago, Mr. Yusril (Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections) came to MUI to talk about two things: the death penalty and the LGBT law. We are continuously discussing this,” said MUI Deputy Chairman KH M. Cholil Nafis, as quoted from MUI Digital.

MUI emphasised that it continues to communicate and discuss with the government regarding law enforcement, including the discussion of severe sanctions for crimes that damage the state order. Kiai Cholil assessed that law enforcement in Indonesia must consider common sense, the sense of justice, and the common opinion developing in society. When the public widely realises that corruption has destroyed the nation’s future and impoverished the people, MUI believes the state cannot turn a blind eye.

“The many arrests are not a sign of successful corruption eradication, but rather a sign of its failure. Because people are not afraid and are not deterred,” he explained.

Responding to the public discourse that often pits the death penalty against impoverishment, MUI believes both measures should be implemented in parallel. Kiai Cholil explained that asset seizure is the state’s obligation to recover the people’s wealth stolen by corruptors. “So there is no dichotomy that the death penalty means not seizing assets. If they are executed, the state’s assets are returned. Both are necessary: asset seizure, yes, and if it causes systemic problems or state destruction, the death penalty is needed,” he stressed.