No room for complacency on judicial reform

On Wednesday, a panel of judges found House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung guilty of the misuse of non-budgetary funds belonging to the National Logistics Agency (Bulog), and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. The two other defendants in the case were sentenced to one year each. The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked to lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis, who is also a member of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro).

Question: Has the verdict against Akbar Tandjung restored the reputation of our courts to any extent?

Answer: Pending the decision of the high court, as the defendants have appealed, the three year verdict showed the panel of judges acted independently of the testimony given by expert witnesses, most of whom clearly favored Akbar.

However, the judges were not bold enough to make any legal breakthroughs. The facts as revealed involved a number of potential witnesses but they were never brought before the court, so the decision was mainly based on the prosecution evidence.

So the flow of the Rp 40 billion was not traced to the maximum extent by the prosecution and the panel of judges; the use of the Bulog funds remains a mystery.

Q: Was the comparatively light sentence mainly due to the legal definition of corruption, which only applies if a loss to the state results, whereas in this case the funds were returned?

A: People will naturally question the sentence when one considers the maximum sentence for corruption (20 years). However, one must look at the context. The defendant is the speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the former ruling party, Golkar. Whatever the length of the sentence, it was in effect a political verdict, a very heavy one (for the defendant).

The question is whether Akbar can hang on as Golkar chairman and House speaker. Although the decision is not binding yet, from the perspective of political ethics there should be a decision that he resign from both posts.

The law in Indonesia does not stipulate such a measure; but a political stance should be taken to maintain Akbar's integrity.

Q: What are the prospects for future corruption cases?

A: This case is a good precedent, and shows that no one is above the law, including high ranking officials. But we indeed face a deep crisis of confidence in the courts, so this verdict will not automatically boost public confidence in the consistency of the courts. This consistency will have to be tested in other cases, and there are many of them pending.

Q: If the judges this time refused to let themselves be influenced by testimony that favored Akbar, what usually influences judges in similar cases? Bribes?

A: This is a case which deeply involved the public interest; it would have been very risky for the judges to have gone on the take. Usually, judges fear political intervention (in their courts), but at this juncture, when attempts are being made to introduce good governance, our nation remains among the 10 most corrupt in the world according to (Berlin-based) Transparency International, and that corruption is seen as being most prevalent in the courts. Thus, there is little choice for the government but to immediately attempt to restore the integrity of the courts.

Not all decisions in corruption cases have resulted in verdicts that satisfy the public's sense of justice. This has always been a crucial issue for the government in convincing donor countries and foreign investors that it is doing its utmost to eradicate corruption.

So the verdict in Akbar Tandjung's case is an indication (of a possible restoration of judicial prestige), but it is too early to be complacent about it. We must see other cases.

Q: Do the judges know they are in the international spotlight regarding corruption?

A: They should know; and at meetings with donors in the Consultative Group on Indonesia the judiciary is among the main issues. It will be brought up at the next meeting in October, in which the main agenda will include a request to our government to conduct judicial reform.

This will be the main focus as there is so much that the government has not done, which has raised doubts among donor countries whether we're really trying to eradicate corruption.

One way would be through the setting up of an anticorruption commission, which until today has not been done despite the issuance of the new corruption law.

Many donor countries want to help with the eradication of corruption but they are doubtful; and this verdict will not immediately convince them.

Q: What has been stopping the setting up of an anticorruption commission?

A: If there was such a body with enough teeth, it would be a potential instrument for wiping out corruption within the government. So there is considerable anxiety (about the planned setting up of the commission); the government is not yet ready to bite the bullet as it could lead to many problems regarding corruption (in politics and government).

Many parties are stalling this (plan). If the government is really intent on this, the Cabinet should have already ordered the justice ministry to set up the commission and forward all necessary bills to the government to then be prioritized for discussion in the legislature. This has not happened.