Prosecution and Nadiem Debate over Authority to Determine Chrome as IT Procurement Specification
JAKARTA — The Prosecution and former Education, Culture, Research and Technology Minister Nadiem Makarim engaged in debate regarding the authority to determine Chrome operating system in the technical specifications for information technology procurement intended for students.
This occurred when Nadiem was examined as a witness in a continued hearing of the alleged corruption case involving Chromebook laptop procurement for three defendants.
These are former Technology Consultant at the Education Ministry Ibrahim Arief; Director of Junior Secondary Schools at the Education Ministry 2020–2021 and Budget User Authority (KPA) Mulyatsyah; and Director of Primary Schools at the Education Ministry 2020–2021 and Budget User Authority Sri Wahyuningsih.
“So, whose decision is it according to you? If it is not the minister’s decision based on the rules mentioned, given the slide presented, if you say that is not the minister’s decision, whose decision is it?” asked Prosecutor Roy Riady during the hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday, 10 March 2026.
“Because technical specifications are not ministerial policy. That is why there was no ministerial regulation whatsoever in 2020 and the director had full authority to change specifications with directorate-general approval,” said Nadiem.
Upon hearing this response, the prosecution concluded, “So this was the error of Mr Mul and Mrs Sri in creating the implementation guidelines and technical guidelines?”
The prosecutor’s question left Nadiem confused. He stated he had never named who was at fault.
“Prosecutor, I have not stated that Mr Mul and Mrs Sri were at fault because I do not know what actions Mr Mul took except from the trial proceedings,” said Nadiem.
He affirmed that based on trial evidence, he had not found errors in the procurement process.
The debate between the prosecution and Nadiem continued for some time. The prosecution pressed on the question of who decided to procure using Chrome operating system.
“That is your decision as minister. Is it Mr Mul’s decision and Mrs Sri’s decision? That is the question,” the prosecutor asked.
Nadiem affirmed that he never discussed decision-making in this procurement.
“I am asking about the decision. You answer,” pressed Prosecutor Roy.
Nadiem affirmed that the decision was made by the competent authority.
Judge Purwanto S Abdullah, the presiding judge, intervened and took over the prosecutor’s questioning.
“Sir, just answer this. There was indeed a final decision to determine Chrome OS. Now, the prosecution’s question regarding the decision to use Chrome OS, whose decision was it? Was it the minister’s, the director’s, or a staff expert’s, or who determined it?” asked Judge Purwanto.
Nadiem explained the decision-making process that had been conducted at the Education Ministry.
“The decision was made based on the recommendation of the technical team and made by a directorate-general decision letter that delegated it to the director,” he said.
This process had been conducted not only during his tenure but since previous ministers.
Nadiem stated that although he did not provide direction regarding the choice of operating system, he still needed to sign the ministerial regulation on the decentralised general allocation fund.
“I am obligated to sign the decentralised general allocation fund ministerial regulation as minister every year. Because this regulation consolidates all the results of the specifications and provisions of the director, which are appended, and I sign,” he said.