Oegroseno: Intelligence Report on Domain Not Recognised in Criminal Procedure Code
An intelligence report that formed the basis for the investigation and criminal charges against Lee Kah Hin, director of PT Wana Kencana Mineral, is not recognised in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). This was stated by retired Senior Police Commissioner Oegroseno, who served as Deputy Police Chief in 2013-2014.
According to Oegroseno, what is recognised in KUHAP is the police report. “That intelligence report is within the domain of intelligence work, not criminal investigation,” Oegroseno said, responding to Lee Kah Hin’s legal counsel Maqdir Ismail at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday (11 March).
In Lee Kah Hin’s investigation, Oegroseno assessed that the report was not genuine. “In my analysis, there has been cooperation between the investigating party and the reporting party. This should not happen. The report should be pure, submitted at the police registration office, without being preceded by an intelligence report,” he stated.
According to Oegroseno, such matters should not occur because they are not regulated by KUHAP. “If this is the case, it follows the private detective model: submit information first, then cooperate, then file a police report. This kind of conspiracy must be eliminated, because legal certainty must be established,” Oegroseno said.
Under criminal investigations as defined in articles 1(4), 5 and 6 of KUHAP, Oegroseno stated that only reports and complaints are valid. “There should be Model A police reports when arriving at the crime scene, and Model B reports when the community has experienced or become victims. So there is no such thing as an intelligence report in KUHAP,” Oegroseno said after the hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on 11 March 2026.
Besides Oegroseno, expert witnesses present included Chairul Huda, Professor of Criminal Law at Muhammadiyah University Jakarta, and Mahrus Ali from Islamic University of Indonesia.
In addition to experts, two witnesses who observed the incident at the Central Jakarta District Court were also presented. They were Awwab Hafiz, Head of Mining Engineering at PT WKM, and Eko Wiratmoko, Chief Executive Officer of PT WKM.
Lee Kah Hin was designated as a suspect for giving false testimony whilst testifying at the Central Jakarta District Court in October 2025. Kah Hin and Eko were witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor, whose statements had previously been recorded by police investigators.
The hearing at that time tried the case of stake placement in PT WKM’s mining concession area. The stakes were contested by PT Position, which reported Awwab and his colleague Marsel Bialembang to police, making them defendants.
The case against Awwab and Marsel was decided by the judge in December 2025. The intelligence report was made in November 2025, before the judge issued the verdict.
Besides the intelligence report, Oegroseno also highlighted the proceedings at the Central Jakarta District Court in October. Oegroseno stated that during the hearing, full authority rests with the panel of judges. “Under KUHAP, it is the judges who must remind any witness or anyone in the courtroom who is suspected of giving false testimony, because they have already been sworn in,” Oegroseno said after the hearing.
If judges indeed find false testimony in the courtroom, Oegroseno said, it is the judge who should instruct the prosecutor to detain the person. “The prosecutor or court clerk will then simply file a report to the police; the person remains detained. This is what KUHAP provides for.”
According to Haris Azhar, Lee Kah Hin’s other legal counsel, this case is a commercial dispute between nickel companies in Weda Bay, East Halmahera, North Maluku. The complainant, Ardianto, representing PT Position, reported Kah Hin to the Metro Jaya Regional Police.
“In our documents, PT Position’s legitimacy to control PT WKM’s land is very low,” he said.
Outside the legal process, Haris said, there had been months of dialogue attempts between PT WKM and PT Position, which is a subsidiary of PT Harum Energy, Tbk.
“Its owner is Kiki Barki, son of Steven Barki. The name Steven appears repeatedly in informal proceedings outside the legal process,” Haris said.
According to Rolas Sitinjak, another legal counsel for Kah Hin, the right to self-defence was not accommodated because the witnesses and experts requested by his client were not included in the case file.