Professor Romli Proposes Revision of Anti-Corruption Law, Citing Nadiem and Tom Lembong Cases
Professor Romli Atmasasmita, an expert in International Criminal Law from Padjadjaran University, has proposed that the House of Representatives (DPR) immediately revise the Anti-Corruption Law (UU Tipikor). Romli highlighted the ongoing controversy surrounding the calculation of state losses in corruption cases, which has led to various conflicting interpretations.
Speaking during a public hearing with the DPR’s Legislation Committee (Baleg) in Jakarta on Monday, Romli noted that the position of the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) as the sole authorised state institution for calculating losses is currently being ignored. He expressed confusion over why prosecutors and judges are now attempting to perform these technical calculations, questioning how legal professionals are expected to master accounting mathematics.
During the meeting, Romli referenced the legal issues involving former Minister of Education, Nadiem Makarim, and former Minister of Trade, Thomas Trikasih Lembong. He remarked that the current state of Indonesian legislation is becoming increasingly unstable, noting that the bureaucracy is now hesitant to make decisions for fear of facing similar legal repercussions.
Consequently, Romli is pushing for a total revision of the Anti-Corruption Law and the swift passage of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. He suggested that following the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which Indonesia has ratified, the element of ‘state loss’ should be removed from the primary definition of corruption offences. He argued that eliminating this element would end disputes over which authority is responsible for calculating losses.
Furthermore, Romli emphasised that strengthening international cooperation for asset recovery is more critical than pursuing officials who may be unaware of the legal complexities. Reflecting on his experience as an expert witness in Nadiem’s case, he noted that even legal experts find the current legal landscape confusing, a situation that inevitably draws international scrutiny.