PERADI Leadership Seen as Not Merely a Position but a Test of Ethics

Jakarta, VIVA – The public has been reminded that organisational crises rarely stand alone; they always conceal questions of the ethics of power. These dynamics are not merely procedural conflicts but rather a test of how the legal profession interprets honour and self-restraint.

This warning was delivered by legal and political observer Pieter C Zulkifli in response to the heated debate over legitimacy and term limits within the Indonesian Bar Association (PERADI).

He assessed the situation as a classic example of organisational politics, where when rules are interpreted flexibly, morality is frequently tested. His analysis attempts to place the polemic within the framework of governance and leadership ethics.

“The PERADI leadership polemic is not merely about positions, but rather a test of ethics, legitimacy, and the limits of power within a professional organisation,” said Pieter Zulkifli in a statement in Jakarta on Monday, 16 February 2026.

He views the dynamics that have developed within PERADI in recent times as an important test for professional organisation governance. According to him, the election of Imam Hidayat as general chairman through an Extraordinary National Congress (Munaslub) in February 2026 marks a divergence of views regarding leadership legitimacy and the limits of organisational authority.

Zulkifli considers the debate to be rooted in the extension of the 2020-2025 executive term under the leadership of Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan. From an administrative standpoint, arguments regarding the need for organisational transition can be understood as efforts to maintain continuity.

However, from the perspective of good governance, he said, every extension of a mandate requires a clear and accountable normative basis. He stated that professional advocate organisations do not merely manage membership administration but also bear an ethical mandate.

For him, the principle of officium nobile places honour and integrity as foundations. Within that framework, compliance with term limits is not merely a formal provision but rather a manifestation of respect for the principles of accountability and the limitation of power.

Zulkifli explained that in modern organisational theory, term limits function to prevent the prolonged concentration of authority. Leadership circulation serves as a corrective mechanism that enables the renewal of ideas and regeneration.

“When differences in interpretation arise over term limit provisions, the space for resolution must remain within the organisation’s constitutional framework,” he said.