Nadiem's Plea Criticised as Misguided Regarding Chromebook Case
Jakarta, VIVA - The claim by former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Nadiem Anwar Makarim, that the policy of using Chrome OS saved the state budget by up to Rp3.9 trillion is deemed irrelevant to refuting corruption allegations regarding Chromebook procurement.
This was stated by Prosecutor and Criminal Law Observer, Fajar Trio, regarding the defence note or plea read by the defendant Nadiem at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday, 2 June 2026. He emphasised that the focus of the charges brought by the prosecutors is not on the choice of operating system, but rather on the alleged price mark-ups in the procurement of the laptop hardware.
According to Fajar, Nadiem’s argument, which claims an “investigative error” by the prosecutors and uses budget efficiency as a basis for defence, is a flawed legal simplification. “In the trial, the Prosecutor’s Office does not dispute the choice of the free Chrome OS. What the prosecutors are targeting is the alleged price mark-up on the hardware units or the physical laptops purchased using the state budget (APBN),” Fajar told reporters on Tuesday, 2 June 2026.
He also highlighted Nadiem’s statement that choosing the free Chrome Operating System (OS) saved trillions of rupiah compared to Windows options. Nadiem even remarked that it was ironic to face a 27.5-year prison sentence for a policy described as saving state funds.
Responding to this, Fajar assessed that there is a logical fallacy mixing policy with execution. He noted that under the legal regime of corruption crimes, claims of budget savings do not automatically erase criminal liability if state losses are found due to the execution of procurement.
“The price difference from the mark-up is what is absolutely calculated as State Financial Loss, as regulated in Article 2, Paragraph (1) of the Anti-Corruption Law,” he said. Fajar emphasised that the savings from choosing the OS cannot serve as an offset to negate criminal elements if the trial facts prove that the real price of the Chromebook per unit was significantly lower than the e-Catalogue contract price submitted by the ministry.
Regarding Nadiem’s claim that there was no mens rea (criminal intent) because experts and witnesses stated there was no element of self-enrichment, Fajar refuted this argument by referring to the construction of Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes.