Probe the judges

Probe the judges

Judges hearing the corruption case of House of
Representatives' Speaker Akbar Tandjung have done a major
disservice, not only to their profession, but also to the
reputation of the court as the dispenser of justice.

Invoking the discretion permitted under the law, the panel of
five judges ordered Akbar's release from detention on Friday,
satisfied that the word of his wife Krisnina Maharani was
sufficient guarantee that Akbar would not miss a single hearing
of his trial.

This latest bizarre court decision came at a time when public
trust in our courts of justice remains at its lowest ebb because
of a series of controversial court rulings which have hurt the
their sense of justice. Akbar's release is lending credence to
the public perception that our legal system is run largely by
corrupt officials, or what many now refer to as "court mafia".

Given Akbar's powerful political position -- he also chairs
the Golkar Party which came second in the 1999 elections -- it is
not surprising that there was such a huge public outcry at his
release. Accusations of KKN (the Indonesian acronyms for
corruption, collusion and nepotism) flew because such a decision,
as legitimate as it may be, was rare.

The panel of judges, led by Amiruddin Zakaria, invoked Article
31 of the 1981 Law on Criminal Procedure Code in ordering Akbar's
release. This is a discretion given to judges to decide whether a
person who is being tried in a series of court hearings should
remain in custody or be released.

Akbar is being tried on charges of corruption in relation to a
40 billion rupiah fund from the State Logistics Agency (Bulog),
whose disbursement in 1999 was intended for poor people. That
money, or the food it was meant to pay for, never reached the
intended recipients, but Akbar, who was then minister/state
secretary in president B. J. Habibie's Cabinet, never accounted
for the money, which went through his office.

The corruption charge against Akbar carries a maximum sentence
of 20 years imprisonment. For such a serious charge, not to
mention for such a high profile case, the judges trying the case
appeared to be at ease in ordering his release on Friday. They
did not seem to have any qualms about using their discretion.

Judges are given such discretion because they are expected to
make responsible decisions, and not just on a whim. Judges, in
their position, should exercise wisdom in using this discretion.
What really went through their minds in granting the request for
Akbar's release is anybody's guess. One thing is clear though,
they are insensitive to public opinion.

Their ruling to release Akbar is even more bizarre considering
that this power of discretion is rarely used by this country's
judges. This prompted speculation that something much more
sinister was involved in reaching this decision. Why, of all the
times, should it be used now, and why for Akbar Tandjung?

This will not only prompt other suspects in the Bulog scandal
to demand equal treatment, but all other suspected criminals
could rightfully now demand that they be released from detention
pending the outcome of their court trials. Why should they be any
different from Akbar Tandjung? Why should the guarantee of their
wives be any different from Krisnina's?

The decision by the judges to release Akbar is too bizarre to
let it pass unnoticed. Was it political pressure? Was it money?
Was it intimidation? Was it a combination of all these factors?

Given these indications of irregularities, the government, in
this case the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, and the
Supreme Court should launch an investigation into the case. They
should remove all five judges from the case and question them.
The professional integrity of the present panel of judges has
become highly questionable and whatever verdict they decide on at
the end of the trial will also be debatable.

This is an opportunity for the government and the Supreme
Court to prove themselves and show the public that they are doing
something to end widespread practices of corruption in our legal
system. They would do well to start with the five judges trying
Akbar Tandjung. They could appoint new judges to continue the
hearing, or start the trial anew.

This is not a case of the government interfering in the
judicial system. This is about protecting the professional
integrity of our judges and about saving the reputation of our
courts of law.