Safeguarding Law Enforcement Independence from the Personalisation of Power
The Garuda Institute has closely observed a series of statements made by Dr. Hotman Paris Hutapea, the legal counsel for former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah, following his client’s questioning at the Attorney General’s Office on Friday, 17 July 2026. Several remarks—including that his client is a figure ‘the pride of President Prabowo Subianto’, a claim that the National Police Chief did not seek the President’s permission before naming a suspect, and a narrative implying the President should have been aware of and addressed the suspect designation—could potentially build a public impression that the legal process is within the reach of the Head of State’s personal considerations. As an institution focused on strengthening legal governance and constitutional democracy, the Garuda Institute has issued an official study and stance on this matter to safeguard the integrity of law enforcement institutions.
Febrie Adriansyah, who served as Jampidsus from 2022 until his resignation, was previously named a suspect by the National Police’s Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortastipidkor Polri). He is suspected of involvement in corruption and money laundering related to the handling of the PT Asabri case before the case was transferred to the Attorney General’s Office. He underwent questioning on 17 July 2026 without being detained, during which his legal counsel presented a rebuttal to the case’s construction while also questioning procedural aspects of the investigation.
The Garuda Institute respects every citizen’s constitutional right to defend themselves through legitimate legal channels in accordance with the principle of due process of law. However, sharp focus is directed at the narrative framing that positions personal closeness to the President or work achievements as relevant variables to the independence of the pro-justitia process. ‘The statement that the suspect designation was made “without the President’s permission” is constitutionally erroneous. The Police and the Prosecutor’s Office are law enforcement agencies whose independence is protected by law, not a personal extension of the President in determining which legal subjects may or may not be processed,’ stated Alexander Waas, Executive Secretary of the Garuda Institute.
The Garuda Institute identified four reasons why such a narrative is dangerous for the legal order. Based on this assessment, the institute declared its official stance, emphasising the need to prevent any personalisation of power from contaminating the criminal justice system.