Pretrial Decision on Yaqut's Hajj Quota Corruption Case to be Delivered Today

A single judge at Jakarta South District Court, Sulistyo Muhammad Dwi Putro, will deliver the verdict in pretrial case number 19/Pid.Pra/2026 on behalf of petitioner Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, the Religious Affairs Minister under former President Joko Widodo, concerning allegations of corruption in hajj quota allocation today, Wednesday (11 March).

“The verdict will be announced on 11 March at 10:00 WIB,” said the judge in the courtroom at the Jakarta South District Court during proceedings held on Monday (9 March).

During the conclusion hearing, Yaqut attended in person. He expressed gratitude that several expert witnesses at the hearing stated that the KPK’s designation of him as a suspect was unlawful.

“I am very grateful for the mutual understanding, tafahum, between the respondent’s experts and the petitioner’s experts on several matters. Most importantly, both sets of experts have reached consensus that the designation of a suspect must come after investigation of state losses has been established,” said Yaqut.

He stated relief that the seven-day pretrial process proceeded transparently and objectively, with both petitioner and respondent receiving fair time and space.

“As a citizen seeking justice under the law, I must state candidly that I feel greatly relieved,” he added.

Yaqut’s legal counsel, Mellisa Anggraini, expressed confidence that the judge would grant the pretrial motion.

“As the petitioner’s side, we are very confident that the single judge of Jakarta South District Court will grant the pretrial petition we have filed,” said Mellisa.

“This confidence is not merely an assumption but is based on facts presented during the hearing, evidence, and expert testimony that emerged transparently throughout the proceedings,” she added.

Meanwhile, the KPK’s Legal Bureau requested that the judge reject Yaqut’s entire pretrial motion, arguing that his legal counsel had erred in determining the subject matter of the petition (error in objecto).

The KPK argued that the arguments raised by Yaqut’s legal team were outside the jurisdiction of the pretrial judge to hear.

“The petitioner’s arguments essentially concern the suspect designation letter, the notice of suspect designation, the authority of the respondent’s leadership in issuing the suspect designation letter, calculation of state financial losses, and criminal procedural law applied in handling this case—these are arguments that fall outside the scope of pretrial proceedings or beyond the formal aspects within the pretrial judge’s jurisdiction,” said the KPK’s Legal Bureau.

They explained the scope of pretrial jurisdiction as regulated under article 1 paragraph 10 in conjunction with article 77 of the 1981 Criminal Code of Procedure, in conjunction with Constitutional Court Decision Number 21 of 2014 dated 28 April 2015, and the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016.

The KPK’s Legal Bureau stated that calculation of state financial losses also falls outside the scope of pretrial proceedings.

“The suspect designation letter and notice of suspect designation are administrative documents in the investigation process or administrative-judicial documents, not coercive measures and therefore fall outside pretrial jurisdiction,” it said.

“Similarly, the respondent’s authority, calculation of state financial losses, and the criminal procedure law applied in handling this case do not fall within pretrial jurisdiction,” it added.

Meanwhile, KPK Deputy for Enforcement and Execution Asep Guntur Rahayu requested prayers from the public so that the institution could continue investigating the alleged additional hajj quota corruption case.

“On this occasion, we ask for prayers from all Indonesian citizens so that we can continue handling this hajj quota case so that the harmed public can obtain justice,” said Asep when confirmed through written message on Monday (9 March).

Asep assured that the hajj quota case had been handled in accordance with procedure and applicable laws and regulations.

“We believe that what we have done formally complies with the laws and internal regulations of the KPK. For further developments, we await the pretrial verdict,” he said.