Nadiem's Lawyer Fails to Attend Hearing: Expert Says It Could Be Classified as Contempt of Court
The Central Jakarta Corruption Court has postponed the trial in the alleged corruption case concerning the procurement of Chromebooks. One of the reasons is the absence of the legal counsel for the defendant, former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim, at the hearing held on Wednesday, 22 April 2026.
In response to this, criminal law expert Abdul Fickar from Trisakti University assessed that the actions of Nadiem’s team fall into the category of contempt of court (COC) or insult to the court.
“Yes, it could also be categorised as contempt of court,” said Abdul Fickar when contacted in Jakarta, quoted on Saturday, 25 April 2026.
Fickar stated that such actions actually harm Nadiem as the defendant, as the trial process is impeded.
“This is a common situation, with misunderstandings among the parties in the trial. In my opinion, this actually disadvantages the suspect because the trial is delayed,” he said.
In such a situation, Fickar believes that the Public Prosecutors (JPU) could request the judge to continue the trial without the defendant’s legal counsel. He even mentioned that the prosecutors could forcibly bring the defendant to attend the hearing.
“The state, in this case the JPU, can request the judge to proceed with the trial even if the defendant’s counsel objects, and the trial continues; the JPU can forcibly bring the defendant to attend,” he stated.
It is known that the Public Prosecutors (JPU) from the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) regretted the absence of Nadiem Makarim’s legal counsel at the Chromebook corruption allegation hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on Wednesday, 22 April 2026.
JPU Roy Riady emphasised that the absence constitutes an action that violates the principle of compliance in the judicial process. According to him, such an attitude represents a lack of professionalism.
“All forms of objections or requests for postponement should be properly conveyed before the court and not through unilateral absence, because the professionalism of law enforcers is tested through their understanding of procedural law,” he said.
Regarding Nadiem Makarim’s absence from the hearing due to illness, Roy stated that the JPU had actually brought Nadiem to the trial location. However, the JPU received information from the detention centre that the defendant was in a state of illness.
He said that although the JPU had not yet received an official doctor’s certificate, based on humanitarian grounds and respect for the condition, the JPU still requested the panel of judges to postpone the trial.