Nadiem Claims State Losses Were Fabricated, Lawyer Exposes Irregularities in BPKP Audit at Chromebook Trial
Jakarta, VIVA – Nadiem Makarim’s legal advisory team has exposed several irregularities in the calculation of state losses in the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebooks.
In the trial at the Corruption Court, the audit method used was deemed not to reflect real field conditions. Nadiem’s lawyer, Dodi S. Abdulkadir, highlighted that the loss figure calculated by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) lacks a clear basis in the market.
“The fair price set by BPKP, averaging 4.3 million, does not exist in price surveys; it is non-existent and unreal. So, they used a figure that does not exist in the market. Anyone measuring state losses must compare it to market prices, online prices. This did not happen. This is the strongest evidence that this is not a real loss,” he said, quoted on Tuesday, 14 April 2026.
He also revealed inconsistencies in the audit data. According to him, statements from former LKPP Chairman Roni Dwi Susanto actually confirm that there was no overpricing in the Chromebook procurement project.
“So, from the LKPP expert, the LKPP Chairman, former LKPP Chairman Mr Roni, has stated that there was no overpricing. Because if there was overpricing, at that time LKPP would not have approved it for publication; it would have been rejected. Then, in line with Mr Roni, LKPP holds a statement from the principal that if there is overpricing, the principal will refund the government’s money. That is a statement from the LKPP Chairman who is indeed an actor, a factual witness. This is an opinion witness, so an opinion based on documents and evidence provided by the prosecutor,” Dodi said.
In agreement, another lawyer, Ari Yusuf Amir, questioned the validity of the BPKP expert’s testimony, which was seen as relying solely on Examination Minutes (BAP).
“A simple question: when the expert says there is overpricing, surely they have data—initial data, comparison data. Earlier, he said that the initial data came from clarification minutes (BA) and BAPs. In the trial, it was explained, so we asked the expert, what if it turns out that the BAPs are wrong? Because we have examined all distributors and principals in this trial who explained that the price was not overpriced. In fact, they saw it as the cheapest price. So, what was stated in the BAP is completely different. From that alone, it’s actually simple. If it is acknowledged that the data source is clarification minutes and BAPs, when the BAPs and clarification minutes are wrong, then the result is wrong. Simple,” Ari said.