Nadiem Ill and Lawyer Absent Cause Trial Postponement, Prosecutor Gives Scathing Response

Public prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office expressed regret over the absence of Nadiem Makarim’s legal counsel at the trial for the alleged Chromebook corruption case at the Central Jakarta District Court’s Corruption Court on Wednesday, 22 April 2026.

Prosecutor Roy Riady, in a statement received in Jakarta on Thursday, emphasised that the absence constitutes a violation of the principle of compliance in the judicial process. According to him, such conduct represents unprofessionalism.

“All forms of objections or requests for postponement should be properly presented before the court, not through unilateral absence, as the professionalism of law enforcers is tested by their understanding of procedural law,” he said.

In response to the possibility of protest elements behind the lawyers’ absence, he stressed that court proceedings are not a place for orations akin to demonstrations.

He emphasised that differences of opinion between the prosecution and the defence are commonplace in legal dynamics.

However, such differences should be presented wisely within the courtroom to be officially recorded by the state.

Regarding Nadiem Makarim’s absence due to illness, Roy stated that the prosecution had actually brought Nadiem to the trial location. However, the prosecution received information from the detention centre that the defendant was in poor health.

He said that although the prosecution had not yet received an official doctor’s certificate, out of humanitarian considerations and respect for the condition, the prosecution still requested the panel of judges to postpone the trial.

Previously, the panel of judges at the Central Jakarta District Court’s Corruption Court postponed the Chromebook corruption case trial because defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim was ill and his advocacy team was absent.

Presiding Judge Purwanto Abdullah stated that the trial was postponed to Monday, 27 April, with the agenda of examining witnesses and expert witnesses a charge, meaning mitigating factors.

In the next trial, the Presiding Judge hopes that Nadiem can recover soon to attend. The same applies to Nadiem’s advocacy team, which is expected to act professionally and attend the trial.