Nadiem Makarim's Legal Team Reports Four Judges to Judicial Commission

The legal team of Nadiem Makarim has reported four judges adjudicating their client’s case to the Judicial Commission (KY). The report contains allegations of violations of the judges’ code of ethics, including manipulation of trial facts, lack of impartiality, and a judge falling asleep during proceedings.

Nadiem’s attorney, Ari Yusuf Amir, stated that the report was accompanied by recorded evidence of the entire trial, which was open to the public. He emphasised that the team did not dispute the guilty verdict itself, but rather the manner in which the panel of judges considered the trial facts.

“The guilty verdict is the authority of the panel of judges. What we are questioning is the alleged manipulation of trial facts that were then included in the ruling,” Ari said at the Judicial Commission building in Central Jakarta on Monday (6/7).

Ari argued that many facts which should have been considered by the judges were not included in the verdict. Conversely, facts that he claimed never emerged during the trial were included in the judges’ considerations.

Furthermore, Nadiem’s legal team highlighted the appointment of Chief Judge Purwanto, who continued to preside over the case despite having previously received a non-palu sanction from the Judicial Commission in a separate matter. “The non-palu decision was handed down on 8 December 2025, yet the very next day he was appointed chief judge in this case. We view this as a disregard for the Judicial Commission’s ruling,” Ari stated.

The legal team suspects that Chief Judge Purwanto and Judge Sunoto were not impartial during the trial. Ari noted that the panel appeared to delve more deeply into witness testimonies that incriminated the defendant, while testimonies that were favourable were cut short or ignored.

He cited the testimonies of witnesses Fiona and Andre, which were considered beneficial to the defendant but were not fully explored. Conversely, witnesses deemed incriminating were given more latitude during the proceedings. Ari also raised the issue of limitations placed on witnesses for the defence, noting that prosecutors were allowed to present over 50 witnesses, whereas the defence was only permitted to present five before the examination was halted.

The report also includes an allegation that two member judges, including Judge Eryusman, fell asleep during the trial. “How can a judge scrutinise all the trial facts if they fall asleep during the hearing? Everything is recorded and forms part of our report,” he said.