Prosecutors' Demands Against Ibrahim Arief in Chromebook Corruption Case Deemed Appropriate

Jakarta, VIVA - Prof Suparji Ahmad, Professor of Law at Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia, considers the public prosecutor’s (JPU) steps in prosecuting the defendants in the alleged corruption case of Chromebook procurement to be appropriate. According to Suparji, the prosecution is based on the respective roles of each party involved in the project that is suspected to have harmed state finances. He emphasised that legal accountability cannot be refuted merely through statements but must be assessed based on the evidence presented in court. It is known that there are four defendants in this case: former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim, former consultant to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, former Director of SMP Mulyatsyah, and former Director of SD Sri Wahyuningsih. “In this context, the prosecutors are correct in demanding accountability from the parties involved in the project that resulted in losses to state finances,” said Suparji, quoted on Saturday, 2 May 2026. He stressed that legal accountability must be adjusted to the roles of each defendant, including Ibrahim Arief as a consultant. According to him, in the trial, objective evidence such as communication recordings and digital documents is more reliable than mere oral denials. “Digital evidence like chats and records of meetings is what the public and judges must trust, because it is difficult to fabricate,” he stated. Suparji also emphasised that the assessment of legal facts cannot be based solely on alibis but must consider the entire chain of events. “Do not base it solely on alibis, but look at the related sequences of events that will become facts in the trial,” he said. Regarding Ibrahim’s role, Suparji considers the recommendation for Chromebook procurement to be an important fact. He stated that without that recommendation, the project suspected of harming the state would likely not have occurred. “If there was no such recommendation, that work would not exist,” he said. He added that the recommendation potentially fulfils the elements of an unlawful act because it is suspected of enriching oneself, others, or a corporation to the detriment of state finances. Furthermore, Suparji believes there needs to be further investigation into whether the recommendation was independent or merely a formal legitimisation to justify the project. Because if it is only justificatory, it could aggravate Ibrahim’s legal responsibility. “The independence and objectivity of the consultant are key. If that is absent, the prosecutors’ legal construction becomes even stronger,” he said.