Prosecutors and Nadiem's Lawyers Clash in Courtroom!

A commotion occurred between the public prosecutor (JPU) and the legal counsel for former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim. The two engaged in a verbal spat after the expert witness in the trial stated that he often assists the prosecution.

This altercation took place during the continuation of the trial concerning the procurement of Chromebooks and Chrome Device Management (CDM) at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Wednesday (6/5/2026). It began when Nadiem’s legal team questioned Agung Firman Sampurna, the former Chairman of the BPK, who was serving as a mitigating expert.

“Here, based on the BPKP’s LHA, the procurement under the Physical DAK is also considered the responsibility of Mr Nadiem. My question is, is that indeed the norm from an auditor’s perspective?” asked the lawyer.

“I already explained earlier that the structure and domain of authority are far apart. What is the specific authority of the minister regarding the state budget, related to administration, and the technical aspects are also different. There are levels below: what is the task of the KPA, what is the task of the PPK, who carries out the technical procurement,” replied the expert.

“The expert’s opinion: can the procurement under the Physical DAK not be held accountable to the minister?” the lawyer asked again.

The prosecutor then interjected before the expert could answer. The prosecutor stated that the question posed by Nadiem’s legal counsel was no longer relevant.

“Permission, Your Honours, we object to this question. Because earlier the expert explained that causality is the relationship between the financial loss to the state and the deviation committed, not the result of the person who did it,” said the prosecutor.

“Earlier, the friend’s PH has been asking about the result or the act of the perpetrator, not about the loss caused by the unlawful act. I think, I just ask for consistency. The expert is also consistent in giving answers, don’t enter into a realm that is not your realm,” the prosecutor continued.

The presiding judge, Purwanto, asked all parties to heed the opinion presented by the expert. Agung then stated that he was only conveying opinions from the field he mastered. Agung also said that he often helps the prosecution and asked to be respected.

“Very well, Your Honour, I have been conveying from earlier, I only answer what is in line with what I master. I am quite knowledgeable in that field, Your Honourable Panel, and it is proven that I helped this prosecution before, my assistance was quite significant. Please respect me too,” said Agung.

Agung’s statement drew a response from the prosecutor. The prosecutor questioned who was not respecting Agung. Nadiem’s legal counsel, Ari Yusuf Amir, immediately retorted to the prosecutor, leading to the commotion.

“Mr Expert, who is not respecting you?” asked the prosecutor.

“Your attitude. The way you speak is improper,” said Ari.

“You are impolite!” said the prosecutor.

“If you want, you should be polite. We are talking nicely. If it’s about shouting, we can shout too!” said Ari.

“You are like a child. You are the one causing the commotion, do you think I’m afraid of you!” said the prosecutor.

“Advocate, be quiet, we are done. Be quiet, Public Prosecutor. We have given you the opportunity to counter, please proceed. This expert is sufficiently educated to provide testimony,” said the judge.

In this case, Nadiem is charged with corruption related to the procurement of Chromebook laptops during his tenure as Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology. The project is said to have caused a state loss of Rp 2.1 trillion.

Besides Nadiem, there are three other defendants in this case. They are Sri Wahyuningsih, former Director of Primary Schools at the Directorate General of Early Childhood Education, Basic Education, and Secondary Education from 2020-2021; Mulyatsyah, former Director of Junior High Schools at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology in 2020; and Ibrahim Arief (Ibam), a consultant for the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology during Nadiem’s era.

Sri and Mulyatsyah have been found guilty. Sri was sentenced to 4 years in prison and Mulyatsyah to 4.5 years in prison.