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?

Have judges not learned any lesson from the case of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra? The youngest son of former president Soeharto was not in custody when he was being tried on corruption charges. He remained free as he waited for the appeals process to run its course, finally ending up with the Supreme Court ruling against him in October 2000. Then he absconded. He was arrested in November 2001. But a senior judge who ruled against him had been murdered and now Tommy is being tried for ordering the killing.

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.