Indonesian Political, Business & Finance News

Roy Suryo and Dr Tifa to Sue KPU over Jokowi's Diploma Case

| Source: CNN_ID Translated from Indonesian | Legal
Roy Suryo and Dr Tifa to Sue KPU over Jokowi's Diploma Case
Image: CNN_ID

Roy Suryo and Tifauzia Tyassuma, through their legal representatives, plan to file a citizen lawsuit against the General Elections Commission (KPU) regarding the alleged fake diploma of Indonesia’s seventh President, Joko Widodo (Jokowi).

Refly Harun, the legal counsel for Tifa-Roy Suryo, stated that the lawsuit targets the KPU, deemed negligent in conducting factual verification of documents, with Jokowi potentially involved as a co-defendant in the case.

“We are also discussing the possibility of filing a citizen lawsuit against the KPU, with former President Jokowi, or the President at the time, as a possible co-defendant,” Refly said during a press conference on Sunday (29/3).

“Because they were negligent in carrying out their duties to perform factual verification of the documents submitted at that time, the diploma. As it turned out later, there was no such factual verification, which remains a point of contention,” he added.

Refly also stated that the lawsuit will be filed due to issues in the verification process of Jokowi’s candidacy documents in the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections.

“Because we do not want the KPU to operate without adhering to principles of good governance, clean government, and acting arbitrarily. After the process at the KIP, it was revealed that the KPU never conducted factual verification of Jokowi’s diploma when he registered, either in the 2014 or 2019 presidential elections,” he said.

On the same occasion, Roy Suryo also highlighted irregularities in the legalisation document of Jokowi’s diploma in question.

“Even in that legalisation, there is something suspicious about the signature of the official, namely the Dean of the Faculty of Forestry, whose term was in 2008. Yet, his name is still listed in 2014,” he said.

“And in the legalisation document, there is no date indicating when the legalisation was done. This also becomes an issue that we will use to sue the KPU to make them work better,” Roy added.

Previously, the Metro Jaya Police had named eight suspects in two clusters related to the case of allegations of Jokowi’s fake diploma.

The first cluster consists of five suspects: Eggi Sudjana, Kurnia Tri Rohyani, Damai Hari Lubis, Rustam Effendi, and Muhammad Rizal Fadillah.

They are charged under Article 310 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) and/or Article 311 KUHP and/or Article 160 KUHP and/or Article 27a in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph 4 and/or Article 28 paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 45a paragraph 2 of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE).

The second cluster consists of three suspects: Roy Suryo, Rismon Hasiholan Sianipar, and Tifauziah Tyassuma alias Dr Tifa.

The three are charged under Article 310 KUHP and/or Article 311 KUHP and/or Article 32 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 48 paragraph 1 and/or Article 35 in conjunction with Article 51 paragraph 1 and/or Article 27a in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph 4 and/or Article 28 paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 45a paragraph 2 of the UU ITE.

Suspect Rismon Hasiholan Sianipar has applied for restorative justice in this fake diploma allegation case. He has also met with Vice Presidential Deputy Gibran Rakabuming at the Vice President’s Palace regarding this matter.

Meanwhile, Roy Suryo and associates previously filed a material review with the Constitutional Court (MK) against several articles in Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law No. 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE).

Roy Suryo et al. challenged it because they felt silenced by those articles. They were reported and subsequently named as suspects by the Metro Jaya Police regarding the compilation and planned publication of a book titled Jokowi’s White Paper.

However, it was not accepted by the MK. The Court concluded that the petitioners’ application was unclear or vague.

View JSON | Print