No date set for Djoko S. Tjandra's new hearing

JAKARTA (JP): The South Jakarta District Court has yet to set a date for a new hearing of a corruption case involving Djoko S. Tjandra in the high-profile Bank Bali scandal because the newly appointed judge assigned to preside over the trial is ill.

Dimyati, a staffer at the court, said on Thursday that Judge Romanna L. Pardede, who replaced R. Soenarto to lead the trial of the controversial case, remained absent from the court due to illness.

"We will only set the date for the hearing after she returns to the court. Later, we'll immediately inform both prosecutor and the defendant's lawyers about the date," he told The Jakarta Post.

Soenarto, while leading a panel of district court judges during a pretrial hearing on March 6, dropped the indictment against defendant Djoko, saying the cessie contract between Bank Bali and PT Era Giat Prima was illegal and therefore the judges did not have the authority to try the case. He said the case should be heard by a civil court.

The Bank Bali scandal centers around a transfer of Rp 546 billion (US$73.7 million) to PT Era Giat Prima as commission for services in assisting the bank to recoup Rp 904 billion in interbank loans.

The case drew public attention as part of the money was reportedly transferred to the Golkar Party to finance the presidential reelection campaign of then president B.J. Habibie.

Early this week, district court spokesman Soedarto said his office had received a verdict from the Jakarta High Court, which rejected the South Jakarta District Court's decision to drop the case and instead ordered the court to continue the trial.

According to the high court, the decision was premature, Soedarto said.

"The high court stated that the district court was not supposed to touch the substance of the case in the pretrial hearing," he said.

Soedarto's announcement of the high court verdict on the case to the media upset one of Djoko's lawyers, Y.B. Purwaning M. Yanuar.

"We are indeed ready to continue the hearing. But the official's decision to publicly announce the verdict without first informing the defendant's lawyer was unacceptable," Purwaning said, adding that Soedarto's move had violated court ethics.

"The district court should inform both prosecutors and the defendant's lawyers about the verdict before disclosing it to the media," she said.

But Soedarto dismissed the allegation, saying it was his job to provide information to the media and answer their questions.

"It is the spokesman's job to disclose any news related to the district court to the media. We're in the era of transparency, then why should we keep secret a verdict?," he said, adding that he did not violate court ethics.

"The administrative staff of the court should automatically send the verdict to both prosecutor and the lawyers," he said. (asa)