No room for complacency on judicial reform

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.