Pre-trial Motion Rejected, Febrie's Camp Highlights Rushed Process
The legal team of former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes, Febrie Adriansyah, has spoken out after the pre-trial motion they filed was rejected in its entirety by the South Jakarta District Court. Febrie’s lawyer, Febri Diansyah, stated that his side respects the ruling read by the judge, although they have several notes regarding the legal considerations in the decision. The legal team, he said, will study the judge’s considerations in more detail before determining the next legal steps.
“Our hope from the beginning of this pre-trial motion was to be able to correct, straighten out, or conduct a thorough evaluation if there are problems in the handling of criminal cases,” he said after the hearing on Thursday (27/8). With this ruling, he hopes that no other parties will become victims of a law enforcement process that is carried out hastily and does not prioritise the principle of caution.
He views that an evaluation of the case handling process is important so that the same problems do not recur. In addition, Febrie also highlighted the importance of the precautionary principle in the law enforcement process, especially because criminal cases have serious consequences for parties examined or named in legal proceedings. “So that there need be no other victims from the failure to fulfil, for example, the principle of caution in handling cases or rushed handling or the like,” he explained.
Febri emphasised that the pre-trial effort undertaken by his side was not solely related to his client’s legal interests. According to him, the process is also part of efforts to encourage improvements in law enforcement so that it continues to run according to the principle of due process of law. “The point is not merely, again not merely about the legal interests or interests of Mr FA, but far greater than that is the endeavour and hope to improve the legal process going forward,” he said.
Febri then highlighted the judge’s consideration, which was said to have acknowledged a lack of caution in the investigation administration. According to him, administrative problems should not be viewed as trivial because they can have a serious impact on people whose names are listed in investigation documents. “Earlier we also listened together as the judge also acknowledged that there had been a lack of caution in the investigation administration,” he said.
Furthermore, Febri said that for some parties, a lack of caution in a letter may appear to be merely an administrative problem. However, for the person whose name is listed in the letter, the consequences can involve human rights and the fate of that person and their family. “For us, that lack of caution may only have the impact of a single sheet of paper, but for other people whose names are mentioned, it is about their fate and the fate of their family,” said Febri.
Febri emphasised that his side continues to place the law as a path to seek truth and achieve justice. He said this attitude is also in line with the stance of Febrie Adriansyah, who is said to have more than 30 years of experience as a law enforcer. “Mr Febrie Adriansyah is in the same position and has the same attitude since he was a law enforcer for about 30 years, and now in his current legal position he still respects the legal process,” he concluded.
Previously, the sole pre-trial judge at the South Jakarta District Court, Richard Edwin Basoeki, affirmed that all legal processes carried out against former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes, Febrie Adriansyah, were lawful. The judge also rejected all pre-trial claims argued by Febrie. In his considerations, Edwin stated that the series of processes—investigation, inquiry, search, seizure, suspect determination, and prevention—were in accordance with procedure.
“Adjudicating, in the principal case, rejecting the Petitioner’s pre-trial application in its entirety,” he said when reading the verdict at the South Jakarta District Court on Thursday (27/8) evening. In his considerations, the judge stated that there had been a series of investigations and case exposés long before the search of Febrie. He said the search action was also carried out in accordance with applicable legal procedures.
Based on expert testimony, the judge stated that the Criminal Procedure Code does not determine a minimum time limit that must pass from the issuance of an investigation warrant until investigators may conduct a search. The judge opined that what can be determined is whether the search action was carried out within the framework of an investigation that has exceeded the factual and legal basis. “The judge did not find circumstances that the a quo case suddenly emerged on 6 July 2026 without a preliminary process. On the contrary, there was a series of investigations and case exposés long before the search action was carried out,” he said.