Prosecution Hearing: Prosecutors Claim Three Experts from Nadiem's Side Are Not Objective
Prosecutors stated this during the delivery of the indictment against Nadiem at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Wednesday (13/5/2026). The three experts in question are I Gede Pantja Astawa, Romli Atmasasmita, and Ina Liem.
“The defendant, through his legal counsel, presented experts namely I Gede Pantja Astawa, an expert in administrative law, Romli Atmasasmita, an expert in criminal law, and Ina Liem. In their statements, they conveyed that there was no wrongdoing in the defendant’s actions from the perspectives of administrative law, criminal law, or education and career consultancy,” said the prosecutor.
Prosecutors assessed the testimonies of these three experts as not independent and not objective. They requested the judges to consider their objections.
“Regarding the opinions of these experts, the public prosecutor requests that the honourable Panel of Judges consider the public prosecutor’s objections stating that the experts’ opinions in their testimonies are not independent or not objective,” said the prosecutor.
Prosecutors explained that criminal law expert Romli Atmasasmita is the biological father of three members of Nadiem’s advocacy team at Law Firm Atmasasmita Dodi and Partners or ADP Law Firm. Prosecutors believe this situation would create a conflict of interest between the expert’s position and that of the advocates defending Nadiem’s interests.
“Among the matters that are not independent or not objective is, first, the position of expert Romli Atmasasmita as a criminal law expert who has a family relationship, namely the biological father of three members of the defendant’s legal advisory team or counsel for the defendant Nadiem,” said the prosecutor.
“Although there is no prohibition in Law No. 20 of 2022 on the Criminal Code, ethically there would be bias or a conflict of interest between the expert’s position and the advocate’s position defending the defendant’s interests,” he added.
Prosecutors claimed to sense the conflict of interest in the expert’s position. They assessed that Romli was more inclined to counter every question from their side.
“It turned out that in the examination process of expert Romli Atmasasmita as a criminal law expert, the bias and conflict of interest were felt by the public prosecutor, where many of Romli Atmasasmita’s opinions were more countering every question from the public prosecutor even though the question only required an answer with simple legal logic,” said the prosecutor.
Prosecutors stated that Ina Liem, presented by Nadiem’s side as an education or career consultant expert, actually lacks scientifically verifiable expertise. Prosecutors viewed Ina Liem’s position as more akin to a content creator defending Nadiem through her social media account.
“And when asked about her knowledge of the case in question, she turned out to know nothing. Additionally, when asked about the philosophy of education in Indonesia and the issues in Indonesian education, her answer was merely ‘empty benches,’ which is certainly an answer that could come from someone who just graduated high school,” said the prosecutor.
“Ina Liem explained procurement of goods and services as well as digitalisation, which is not her expertise, and speaking without knowledge is characteristic of a content creator,” he added.
Prosecutors then explained their objections to the testimony of I Gede Pantja Astawa. They highlighted I Gede’s statement that the misuse of authority in conflicts of interest by state officials resulting in state losses must first be resolved administratively.
“Then the third expert, I Gede Pantja Astawa, in giving his testimony mentioned that the misuse of authority in conflicts of interest by state officials resulting in state losses must be resolved administratively first. The relevant testimony, for every trial such as in the corruption case of Siti Fadilah Supari, was not considered by the Panel of Judges and was even acknowledged by the expert himself,” he said.
Previously, former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim was demanded a sentence of 18 years in prison. Prosecutors are convinced that Nadiem is guilty in the corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management (CDM).
“The prosecution demands that the panel of judges declare the defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim proven guilty legally and convincingly of committing corruption offences jointly,” said prosecutor Roy Riady while reading the indictment at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Wednesday (13/5/2026).
“To impose a prison sentence on the defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim of 18 years,” added the prosecutor.
Nadiem was also demanded to pay a fine of Rp 1 billion or subsidiary 190 days of imprisonment. In addition, prosecutors demanded Nadiem pay restitution of Rp 809,596,125,000 (809 billion) and Rp 4,871,469,603,758 (4.8 trillion), or a total of Rp 5,681,066,728,758 (5.6 trillion).
Prosecutors stated that Nadiem’s assets could be confiscated and auctioned to cover the restitution. However, if insufficient, it would be replaced with 9 years of imprisonment.
Prosecutors are convinced that Nadiem is guilty of violating Article 603 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Corruption Offences Law in conjunction with Article 20 letter c of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code.