Prosecutors Flag Indications of Overpricing in Education Ministry's Chromebook Procurement

Public prosecutors have scrutinised alleged overpricing in the procurement of Chromebooks at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (Kemendikbudristek).

Facts disclosed during the trial indicate that the Chromebooks purchased by the government were priced at Rp5 million to Rp6 million per unit, whereas the market price for the lowest specifications hovered around Rp3 million.

This was stated by Public Prosecutor Parade Hutasoit in response to the plea of defendant Nadiem Makarim and his legal team in the alleged corruption case concerning the Chromebook procurement at the ministry.

According to Parade, his party will deliver a complete response during the replication hearing on 9 June 2026.

“If it is said to be profitable, the profitability cannot be proven up to now,” Parade said, as quoted on Thursday, 4 June 2026.

He asserted that the trial facts instead showed a significant price difference between the procurement cost and the market price of the Chromebooks.

“Those are the trial facts. Meanwhile, in that procurement, the price of one Chromebook was around Rp6 million, so Rp5 million to Rp6 million. So there is overpricing,” he said.

The public prosecutor also questioned Nadiem’s claim in his plea that the Chromebook programme had saved the state budget up to Rp3.9 trillion. According to Parade, there is a contradiction in the defence’s arguments.

“On one hand, he says it was not him who suggested it, but on the other hand, he concludes that Chromebooks represent a profitable programme,” he said.

Beyond questioning the substance of the defence, Parade rejected accusations that the case ensnaring the former Education Minister was politically motivated. He stressed that the entire prosecution process is based on trial facts and submitted evidence.

“Fundamentally, we as public prosecutors have never been grounded in political matters. We are purely about law enforcement,” he stated.

Parade revealed that his party had studied the defence note, consisting of 16 pages of Nadiem’s personal plea and 1,334 pages of documents from the legal counsel team. He considers there to be a fundamental difference between the conclusions presented by the defendant’s side and the case construction built by the prosecutors.

“In this case, the defendant’s legal counsel and the defendant essentially conclude that the elements as we have charged, which we read out in a previous session declaring the defendant subject to the primary charge, have not been proven,” he said.