Police assert prevention of Febrie Adriansyah not arbitrary action
The Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortas Tipidkor) of the Indonesian National Police and the other respondents have asserted that the prevention of former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah was not an arbitrary action.
“Thus, the preventive action is not an extra-procedural action, not an administrative action carried out arbitrarily, and not a form of punishment prior to a court ruling, but rather a criminal procedural instrument explicitly justified by law,” said the respondents’ representative, Head of Legal Affairs of the Polda Metro Jaya, Police Commissioner Abrianto Pardede, during the respondents’ answer hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday.
The respondents stated that the temporary prohibition on a suspect or defendant leaving Indonesian territory in the interest of criminal proceedings is regulated under Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
Furthermore, the South Jakarta District Court noted that Febrie was named a suspect on 10 July 2026, while the prevention request was only submitted on 11 July 2026. The respondents said the subject requirement for requesting Febrie’s prevention had been fulfilled.
“Therefore, the requirement regarding the subject who may be subject to a prohibition on leaving Indonesian territory has been fulfilled. In the prevention request letter dated 11 July 2026, it was expressly stated that the prevention was requested in the interest of the investigation,” said Abrianto.
“Because there is concern that the suspect will flee abroad and/or to anticipate if the suspect is already at an immigration checkpoint to leave Indonesian territory. The petitioner has constructed an argument as if the preventive action was carried out automatically merely because the petitioner obtained suspect status,” Abrianto stated.
The respondents assessed that Febrie’s pretrial motion regarding the legality of the prevention was legally unfounded. The respondents detailed their reasons as follows:
Prevention of a suspect is a coercive measure expressly justified by the Criminal Procedure Code,
Febrie’s status as a suspect existed before the prevention request was issued,
The preventive action was not based solely on suspect status but was carried out to guarantee the concrete interests of the investigation,
Febrie was deemed mistaken in basing the notification obligation on Article 98 paragraph (1) of the Immigration Law because that norm regulates deterrence, not prevention notification. The correct notification obligation is found in Article 94 paragraph (3) of the Immigration Law and relates to the prevention decision, not necessarily identical to the investigator’s request letter to the immigration agency. Even if there were issues regarding notification, the respondents believe the Immigration Law does not stipulate that such deficiency automatically renders the prevention null and void.
Febrie specifically challenged the search conducted at his residence in the Sentul area on Wednesday evening, 8 July 2026, until the early hours of Thursday, 9 July 2026. He considered the legal process carried out by the police to be inconsistent with applicable procedures.
Febrie’s camp also requested that the seizure of items carried out by Respondent I on 9 July 2026 against the petitioner’s family home in Sentul City, Parahyangan Golf 2 Cluster (also known as Bogor Golf Hijau Housing), Babakan Madang District, Bogor Regency, West Java Province, be declared invalid and without binding legal force.
Febrie Adriansyah’s first pretrial motion is registered under case number 134/Pid.Pra/2026/PN.JKT.SEL. The sole judge in the hearing is Richard Edwin Basoeki.