Nazarruddin deserves better treatment: Expert

Nazarruddin deserves better treatment: Expert

The Anticorruption Court on Wednesday sentenced General Elections
Commission (KPU) chairman Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin to seven years in
prison for receiving billions of rupiah in kickbacks from an
insurance company that won a contract to insure the elections.
The Jakarta Post's Riyadi Suparno discussed this high-profile
case with media legal expert Hinca Panjaitan, a member of the
Press Council.

Question: The court has handed down a verdict against
Nazaruddin. Some welcome it, but some others question it. What is
your view on this?

Answer: The verdict goes against my sense of justice.

From a legal perspective, we have to establish first whether
there is malicious intent behind the action, and if it is
corruption, we have to find out if it is a deliberate action.

If we look at an example from the corruption case involving
Bank Negara Indonesia (BNI), with Adrian Waworuntu as one of the
main actors. It is clear from the court proceedings that he
embezzled Rp 1.7 trillion (about US$170 million) from the bank
and that is why he was jailed for life. Deliberate corruption was
clear.

And surely, this differs from corruption at democratic
institutions like the KPU. The difference is in the intent and
background of the corruption. It is a totally different kind of
corruption.

In the case of BNI, we all agreed, there were no reasons at
all to forgive Adrian Waworuntu.

But for the KPU case, there are so many mitigating factors.
There should have been considerations about the success stories
brought about by the KPU and Nazaruddin, which are instrumental
for our democratic development. If we look at all these
successes, we possibly could forgive Nazaruddin for the
corruption committed, likely without his explicit knowledge.

Nazaruddin, in my opinion, would likely not have had an
intention to commit corruption at the KPU; unlike Adrian with
BNI. Even if what Nazaruddin did was a form of corruption, we
should treat that corruption differently from that at the BNI.

So, how should justice be upheld in the case of Nazaruddin?

Corruption remains corruption and that is a crime. But the
punishment should be differentiated between those that committed
it intentionally and those who unintentionally got caught up in
it.

So, it should be seen differently if the corruption was not
deliberate or it happened because the person did not understand
the administrative system, or because of the pressing time that
he had to make a decision. And in this case, I do not believe we
get a clear motive behind the corruption. So, we ought to punish
the person by ordering him to return all the money to the state,
but without prison time.

By doing so, we have not treated this person the same as those
who intentionally committed corruption like Adrian in the BNI
case.

Nazaruddin argued in court that if he hired the insurance
company without going through the proper procedures, i.e. without
convening a plenary session, and that was considered a breach of
the law, then, the result of the first round of the presidential
election should be considered legally invalid. What is your
opinion?

That is interesting. That was one of the court's
considerations. And Nazaruddin responded correctly, if that
decision was against the law, then, all his decisions -- in his
capacity as the KPU chairman -- made without involving other KPU
members were also against the law. If that is the case, then the
first round of presidential elections was legally invalid or at
least flawed because he made so many decisions on the validity of
votes without having plenary meetings.
Do you think this argument could have a political impact?

For me personally, it really touches my sense of justice. If
my sense of justice is offended, I think those political parties
should be more than just offended.

Nazaruddin at one point complained about media reports that
had cornered him. What is your opinion?

KPU and the press are two important pillars of democracy. The
press plays a watchdog role, and equally, the KPU plays an
operational role for democracy by holding free elections.

KPU is our choice to prevent the government's monopoly in
holding elections. We put our faith in that institution. In the
beginning, many of us doubted that the KPU would be successful in
organizing elections. But they did it successfully.

If we imagine KPU as a car, and like any car, it needs a
driver. A car without a driver will not go anywhere. So, the KPU
needs a masterful driver to get through the difficult roads to
democracy. If the driver is not capable, it could fall off the
cliff into the abyss.

We all saw how the KPU accomplished its tasks without
bloodshed. The elections proceeded peacefully, and the
international community praised their accomplishments.

Then, suddenly, the KPU driver was named a suspect in a
corruption case. Since then, the media has become unfair. The
media made its opinions public and separated the KPU, the car and
its driver, Nazaruddin, and even pushed Nazaruddin out of the car
and he fell into the abyss.

The media, so far, has no empathy for our democratic
institutions, like the KPU, moreover the drivers like Nazaruddin.
I would remind the media and all of us that without capable
leaders, democratic institutions like the KPU cannot achieve
anything.

So, what is your suggestion to the media on this issue?

I would call on my friends in the media to be more
sympathetic toward democratic institutions. If not, our
democratic institutions that we have built with all our sweat
will lose value and even lose steam to carry out their functions.
If that happens, no more capable people would be willing to run
those democratic institutions, and if that were the case, it
would be a setback for the whole country and we would all lose.