Sahroni says MKMK ruling is fair: Adies Kadir did not breach ethics

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – Deputy Chairman of DPR’s Commission III, Ahmad Sahroni, said the decision of the Honours Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) regarding reports of alleged ethical violations by Judge Adies Kadir was correct. The MKMK stated it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate three reports related to alleged ethical breaches in the process of Adies’ selection as a Constitutional Court judge. ‘That is very fair,’ Sahroni said when contacted on Thursday (5 March 2026). According to Sahroni, Adies did not breach ethics in relation to the selection as a MK judge. Therefore, it is reasonable that MKMK did not proceed with the three complaints. ‘Because Adies Kadir did not breach ethics, the MKMK did not adjudicate the three alleged violations,’ he added. Earlier reports indicated there were three complaints to MKMK concerning alleged violations in Adies Kadir’s recruitment process to become a Constitutional Court judge. In the session held today, MKMK ruled that the three complaints fell outside its authority. One consideration was that the MKMK’s scope applies only to someone who is currently serving as a Constitutional Court judge, as defined by Sapta Karsa Hutama. In the petitioner’s description, MKMK found that Adies Kadir had not yet been formally sworn in by the Constitutional Court as a judge. ‘A person who has not yet served as a Constitutional Court judge, or who has completed service, is no longer bound by Sapta Karsa Hutama,’ said MKMK member Ridwan Mansyur in the session at the MK Building. ‘What is meant by not being bound here is not being within reach of monitoring and enforcement of the ethics code by the Honours Council as set out in Sapta Karsa Hutama,’ he added. In addition, MKMK’s other considerations stated that the report’s contents were based on suspicion and the concerns of the complainants. ‘Even if there are factual elements, the facts occurred when the Respondent Judge had not yet held status as a Constitutional Court judge,’ he continued. ‘Thus the Honours Council is not authorised to examine and adjudicate the report in question, whether for preventive measures or punitive action or to enforce the ethics and conduct code, because preventive or punitive measures apply only once someone has become a Constitutional Court judge,’ he said.