Nadiem Makarim Explains Reasons for Appointing Fiona and Jurist Tan as Special Staff

Former Education, Culture, Research and Technology Minister Nadiem Anwar Makarim addressed the background of his former special staff members (stafsus), Fiona Handayani and fugitive Jurist Tan. Nadiem stated that the appointment of Fiona and Jurist as special staff was based on consideration of their experience and willingness to learn.

Nadiem Makarim made this statement while serving as a crown witness in an alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebooks and Chrome Device Management (CDM) at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday, 10 March 2026. The defendants in the hearing are Mulyatsyah, Director of the Middle School Division at the Ministry of Education 2020; Sri Wahyuningsih, Director of Elementary Schools at the Directorate General of Early Childhood Education, Primary and Secondary Education for 2020-2021; and Ibrahim Arief, known as Ibam, a consultant.

Initially, prosecutors questioned the background of Fiona and Jurist in the education sector. Nadiem stated that Fiona had experience at the Centre for Education Studies and Policy (PSPK) and served on the Jakarta Governor’s team during Basuki Tjahaja Purnama’s (Ahok) administration on education, health and personnel programmes.

“Fiona has expertise in the field of education because of her experience at PSPK, where she worked on education transformation for a considerable time, and before that she also had experience in DKI Jakarta, which was also related to the sector,” Nadiem said.

Nadiem acknowledged that Jurist did not have explicit qualifications in the education sector. However, Nadiem stated that Jurist had extensive experience in education administration at the Presidential Staff Office (KSP).

“Jurist does not have explicit qualifications in education, but he has extensive experience at the KSP in education administration. The Presidential Staff Office. Perhaps for the prosecutor who is unfamiliar, the KSP, the Presidential Staff Office, operates across various government regulations and coordination,” Nadiem said.

Nadiem stated that this experience was the reason Fiona and Jurist were appointed as special staff. He also said he would choose people who were willing to learn when entrusting a position, including special staff roles.

“That is why Fiona was appointed as special staff on strategic issues related to school matters, and Jurist became special staff in the field of governance, for matters related to regulation and interaction with external parties such as other ministries. That was the division,” Nadiem said.

“So I also want to add that a person’s success in their role depends on whether they have both ability and passion. From my experience, people who have passion for a particular field have remarkable learning capacity. And I will always choose people who are willing to learn, even if they are competent and willing to learn,” he added.

The prosecutor also examined the authority granted by Nadiem to Fiona and Jurist. Nadiem stated that Fiona and Jurist did not have authority to make decisions.

“Is it true that you gave or were aware of SKM Jurist Tan and Fiona chairing Zoom meetings attended by staff below your ministry?” the prosecutor asked.

“I was never aware of my special staff’s detailed activities, and according to Fiona’s testimony at the previous hearing, Fiona also stated that not everything was reported to the minister. According to the SKM’s function, it is to provide consideration to me and also consideration to directors-general and relevant directors, but they do not have authority to make decisions,” Nadiem answered.

“It was also proven at the hearing several times that the allegation that they chaired meetings was contradicted by the fact that the meetings were actually chaired by certain directors, according to the minutes and recorded documents,” he added.

Nadiem admitted he was unaware of the detailed activities carried out by his special staff. In this hearing, Nadiem also admitted that he only met defendants Sri and Mulyatsyah in custody after the case began.

“So, first, I was not aware of what activities they performed. Only after the trial process did I begin to understand what the technical team was, what studies existed and so on, because on 6 May, when I became minister, I only received a briefing on 6 May,” Nadiem said.

Previously, the indictment hearing for Mulyatsyah, Sri and Ibam was held on Tuesday, 16 December 2025. The prosecution charged Mul, Sri and Ibam with causing state financial losses of Rp 2.1 trillion in the case.

The prosecutor stated that the calculation of state losses of Rp 2.1 trillion comes from overpricing of Chromebook laptops amounting to Rp 1,567,888,662,716.74 (1.5 trillion). Additionally, from the procurement of unnecessary and non-beneficial CDM totalling USD 44,054,426 or approximately Rp 621,387,678,730 (621 billion).