Observer Urges Attorney General's Office to Maintain Institutional Independence in Febrie Adriansyah Case

Prosecution observer Fajar Trio considers institutional independence to be one of the crucial issues in handling the case involving former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), Febrie Adriansyah. Although Team 9 has been formed and is carrying out its duties, several parties believe the Attorney General’s Office needs to evaluate its members. Fajar assesses that a number of figures within the team are considered to be rife with alleged conflicts of interest.

Previously, the Civil Coalition of the Anti-Corruption Society highlighted the alleged involvement of Team 9 Chairman Hari Wibowo, who currently serves as Director A of Jampidum. While serving as Head of the Central Jakarta District Prosecutor’s Office, Hari was linked to the polemic over the auction of assets belonging to corruption convict from PT Asuransi Jiwasraya, Heru Hidayat. The strategic asset, in the form of 100 percent of PT Gunung Bara Utama (GBU) shares valued at Rp1.945 trillion, drew attention because the auction process was only attended by a single participant.

Regarding this matter, Fajar emphasised that the execution process of a court decision that has permanent legal force (inkracht) is the absolute authority of the Central Jakarta District Prosecutor’s Office, not Jampidsus. “After the investigation process until the verdict is completed, the responsibility for executing the decision rests entirely with the executor prosecutor, namely the Central Jakarta District Prosecutor’s Office, and that process is outside the jurisdiction of Jampidsus. The implementation of the auction has no institutional or functional connection whatsoever with Febrie Adriansyah,” said Fajar on Saturday (15/8).

The involvement of figures with such track records in Team 9 raises concerns that the investigation into Febrie could potentially become a form of selective prosecution. Fajar stressed that positive law in Indonesia has in fact strictly regulated the limits of conflicts of interest for law enforcement officials.

“First, Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor’s Office as amended by Law Number 11 of 2021 has emphasised that prosecutors must act based on the law and uphold moral integrity without intervention or conflicts of interest,” explained Fajar.

“Second, we have Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration which specifically regulates the prohibition of conflicts of interest for government officials and law enforcers. Officials who have a potential conflict of interest are obliged to declare their resignation in order to guarantee objectivity,” he continued.

Seeing the vulnerability of this ethical foundation, Fajar urged the leadership of the Attorney General’s Office to be transparent and immediately re-evaluate Team 9 in order to maintain the dignity of the law enforcement institution in the eyes of the public.