Quashing corruption should be free from interference

Attorney General Baharuddin Lopa will never be successful in fighting corruption without political support from the House of Representatives (DPR), the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) and the President, says coordinator of Indonesian Corruption Watch Teten Masduki.

Question: Is Attorney General Baharuddin Lopa motivated more by his intention to uphold the supremacy of law or by political aims in his investigation of powerful people suspected of corruption?

Answer: Afraid of being tried, a number of figures related to the former New Order government are now spreading propaganda accusing Lopa of trying to bring President Abdurrahman (Gus Dur) Wahid's political rivals to court with a target of sustaining the President's political position after the MPR special session, scheduled for early August.

But the fact that Lopa is also investigating three businessmen, who were once protected by Gus Dur for political reasons, indicate that Lopa is moving within a corridor upholding the rule of law. (Suspects under investigation by the Attorney General's Office include House Speaker Akbar Tandjung, chairman of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle's DPR faction Arifin Panigoro and MPR member Nurdin Khalid of the Golkar Party.)

Now that he is accused of politicizing legal actions, can Lopa succeed in trying to uphold the supremacy of the law?

It will be very difficult for Lopa to succeed without political support, particularly from the DPR, while he is handicapped by his own personnel at the Attorney General's Office. Even if he is able to bring a corruption suspect to court, his trial may not be fair, considering that "court mafia" practices are still very strong.

What should be done to support Lopa's efforts to bring those suspected of corruption to court and to eradicate corruption?

There must be parallel actions from various institutions. Lopa must first clean his own office. How can he bring those accused of corruption to court if he is still surrounded by corrupt prosecutors? Cleaning his office of corrupt prosecutors is very important, particularly because we cannot expect him to remain in office until 2004 -- bearing in mind that Gus Dur's government is currently very weak.

Minister of Justice and Human Rights Marsillam Simandjuntak and Supreme Judge Bagir Manan must also support Lopa by ridding courts of "dirty" judges. This is the right time to have clean courts and clean attorney offices while we have figures of high integrity like Lopa, Marsillam and Bagir.

Leaders at the state secretariat, a notorious center of corruption, should also support Lopa.

However, those measures will not be possible without political support from President Gus Dur and the DPR. Gus Dur, for example, should not politically intervene in Lopa's actions.

The DPR must also support Lopa in his efforts to bring those accused of corruption, including senior figures, to court. If DPR members want to dissuade the President from political intervention they should not use this as a pretext for hampering Lopa from investigating their own corrupt colleagues.

Isn't Gus Dur consistent in eradicating corruption?

No. The fact that he has not initiated any efforts to reform the law to clean courts of corruption, create new regulations to complete our law system, reform the bureaucracy to hinder possible corruption, dismiss corrupt executives from state-owned enterprises and act as a model for clean leadership indicates that he has no political will to eradicate corruption.

Are MPR and DPR members also inconsistent in eradicating corruption?

Oh, yes. The MPR has indeed issued anti-corruption decisions but they are no more than archives because the MPR, and also the DPR, have not made any concrete steps to support their implementation. Corrupt practices, which used to be concentrated around the authoritarian power-holder, therefore, have now -- during this era of democracy -- become anarchic. (Such practices) are available at any levels of any institutions, including the DPR and the MPR.

Money politics, for example, is obvious during the election of local leaders. It is not strange to notice that the MPR/DPR compound has now become a parking lot for luxury cars.

Now that Lopa is under fire, can he retain his position even after the MPR special session?

It will be difficult. Because almost all political parties collect their funds from sources linked to corruption, Lopa will always encounter hurdles from political groups on his position. Even his recent promotion as attorney general was actually opposed by many party leaders.

Does the Attorney General's Office need more legal support?

Yes. At least, the office needs to be supported by a new law prescribing it as an autonomous institution, so that it cannot be intervened by the President, nor by the DPR, whose members mostly have no integrity. The fact that recent legal processes of some government officials and businessmen were strongly opposed by DPR and MPR members indicate that they lack integrity or commitment to eradicate corruption.

How can we clean the office of corrupt prosecutors if their corruption cannot be proved?

There should be measures enabling us to use their unrealistic abundance of wealth as evidence for corruption because bribes can be made in various forms, such as fees for lecturing or consultation.(Rikza Abdullah)