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.