Prosecutors' Demands Against Chromebook Defendant Ibrahim Arief Deemed Unfounded

The controversy surrounding the alleged corruption in the Chromebook procurement case has intensified. The legal team for the defendant, Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, considers the demands presented by the prosecutors to lack a strong legal foundation and to contradict the facts revealed during the trial. Ibam’s lawyer, R. Bayu Perdana, emphasised that their intention is not to influence the ongoing trial but to provide clarification to the public. “We need to emphasise from the outset that this is not to influence the ongoing trial, but to correct information for the public based on the trial facts,” Bayu stated, quoted on Wednesday, 22 April 2026. According to him, there are irregularities in the compilation of the prosecutors’ demands, which he deems inconsistent with the indictment. He highlighted the emergence of the Rp16.9 billion figure, which was never mentioned in the indictment nor proven in the trial. “The indictment is the basis and limit of the case examination. All analyses in the demands must not exceed what has been charged. However, in this case, the Rp16.9 billion figure has emerged, which never appeared in the indictment,” Bayu said. He also responded to the prosecutors’ statement that the demands were not composed suddenly. According to him, the figure never appeared in the proof process. The legal team also spotlighted the issue of the burden of proof in the corruption case, which they believe has been misdirected towards the defendant. “The prosecutors stated they did not suddenly demand that Ibam enriched himself. But in fact, the Rp16.9 billion figure was never in the indictment and was never proven in the trial. That figure, if it exists, should have appeared in the indictment, not just in the demands. This is the fundamental issue,” he said. In addition, the legal team noted a striking disparity in the demands. They questioned the reasons for the heavy demands against their client, who is said not to have received any flow of funds. “This needs to be criticised together. What is the basis for such a vast difference in demands against someone who has not been proven to receive money at all?” he said. Another lawyer, Frizolla Putri, added that during the trial process, with more than 50 witnesses presented, no evidence of Ibam’s involvement as alleged was found.