Prosecutors: Nadiem Admits to Allegations in Chromebook Corruption Case

Public prosecutors have stated that former Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Minister Nadiem Anwar Makarim has admitted to the charges in the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebooks and Chrome Device Management (CDM). The prosecutors said Nadiem acknowledged the decision to select Chromebooks during a meeting on 6 May 2020. “What is interesting for us is that the defendant himself admitted what we charged. What did he admit? The decision on the 6th to use the Chromebook brand, which is prohibited under the Presidential Regulation, he admitted it. Then he loudly admitted that he approved the draft using the Chromebook brand,” said prosecutor Corneles Geeb Paulus H after the hearing at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday (23/6/2026). The prosecutors stated this decision contradicted Presidential Regulation No. 16 of 2018. They refuted Nadiem’s argument that he chose Chromebooks on the basis of cost savings and policy. “Regarding savings, did he really make savings? The Chromebook procurement at that time was for 15 units. He compared the procurement of 15 Chromebook units costing Rp 100 million per school with a PC or computer lab procurement costing Rp 140 million for 22 units. Remember, there is a difference: 15 Chromebook units, 22 PC units in the lab,” the prosecutor said. “From the price of Rp 6 million multiplied by 15, you get almost Rp 100 million. Then the price of the computer lab with 22 units multiplied by Rp 6 million is almost Rp 140 million,” he added. The prosecutors argued that the procurement was overpriced and constituted a waste. “Besides the 22 units in the computer lab, there is a server. The price is only Rp 140 million. Meanwhile, the Chromebook price is Rp 100 million for only 15 units. An even worse waste is that these Chromebooks require Google Cloud. Year after year, the ministry requires Google Cloud procurement with a budget of hundreds of billions for integration so the Chromebooks can be used,” the prosecutor stated. The prosecutors said the alleged corruption in the Google Cloud procurement is still being handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to this day. They also stated that the National Public Procurement Agency (LKPP) never conveyed any such savings claim. “We can calculate, we can prove there is a contract for the procurement of computer lab equipment. We have proven that the Chromebook procurement of only 15 units has a contract. We can compare the prices if equalised at Rp 6 million, which one is more expensive? With high specifications at Rp 6 million and with low specifications at Rp 6 million, which is more expensive? You can analyse it,” the prosecutor said. The prosecutors noted that the assistance from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) in this procurement was never presented at the trial. They stated there was no legal vacuum at the time the decision was made and that mentioning a specific brand is not permitted under applicable regulations. “We analyse one by one. Was there a legal vacuum in the Chromebook procurement? Was there a legal vacuum when he forced the mention of a brand? It turns out, after we reviewed, after we brought the facts to trial, there is a law regulating brands. Mentioning a brand in government procurement of services is not allowed,” the prosecutor said. “LKPP is the most prudent institution issuing regulations so that government procurement of services is fairer. It turns out the norm exists, there is no legal vacuum. But then he said there was a legal vacuum. Even though there isn’t, he then said it was a policy. This is not a policy,” he added. The prosecutors asserted there was malicious intent and deliberate action in this procurement. They highlighted the exclusion of the Budget User Authority (KPA) and the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) from the 6 May 2020 meeting. “We believe that in the trial, the facts we brought to the trial show that state financial losses have occurred. Our facts, we brought to the trial that there is mens rea, there is malicious intent, there is deliberate action, there is actus reus. So we believe this is not an abuse of authority, but the opposite,” he stated. The prosecutors also addressed the narrative presented by Nadiem. He said investigators from the Attorney General’s Office are still pursuing the fugitive Jurist Tan, a former special staff member to Nadiem. “But once again, do not be trapped by his narratives which are quite influential, even the judge is influenced. That computer lab procurement is not Windows. So PC, PC is not Windows. The matter of them choosing which operating system is the authority of the Procurement Officer (PPK). So what was procured is a PC or the nomenclature is a computer or ICT laboratory procurement,” he said. The prosecutors also responded to Nadiem’s statement calling Jurist Tan one of the nation’s best sons. The prosecutors pointed to Jurist Tan’s dominant attitude in every meeting. “In his narrative earlier, he said that Jurist Tan is one of the nation’s best sons. You have all seen the videos, right? How Jurist Tan controlled every meeting, how he often said that for this procurement I will coordinate with people from Google,” the prosecutor said. “I will coordinate with Google. We will receive a kind of 30% CSR from Google. We have proven all of that based on the facts in the trial,” he added. The prosecutors said Nadiem also conveyed a lie regarding special assistance from the Attorney General’s Office for Civil and State Administrative Affairs (Jamdatun). They stated that at the time, Jamdatun presented eight problematic findings that needed to be rectified but were not acted upon. “Regarding the assistance from the Prosecutor’s Office. Datun, we have examined, we have tested whether his statement, which he narrated externally as a way to shape public opinion so that people’s minds are co-opted by what he said, turned out to be untrue. We tested it. We succeeded in testing him. There were eight findings of problems from Datun’s assistance and recommendations that had to be fixed,” the prosecutor said. “But they were not fixed by him. Once again, they were not fixed.”