The heated pre-trial hearing of Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, marred by debate and answers cut short
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - The atmosphere of the pretrial hearing filed by former Minister of Religious Affairs Yaqut Cholil Qoumas against the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) at the South Jakarta District Court on Friday (6 March 2026) was heated.
Intense tension occurred during the question-and-answer session when Yaqut’s legal counsel repeatedly interrupted the explanation of criminal law expert from Universitas Riau, Professor Erdianto, who was presented by the KPK.
“Lah kan saya mau jawab, Bapak potong. Saya jawab ini kan berdasarkan KUHAP lama. Itu kan bunyinya pasal tadi, pasal peralihan KUHAP. Karena ini prosesnya sudah berlangsung sebelum KUHAP baru, ya prosesnya tunduk pada KUHAP lama,” said Erdianto in the courtroom as his statements were repeatedly cut off.
According to Erdianto, cases where the legal process began while the old KUHAP was still in effect cannot be readily tested using the provisions of the new KUHAP.
“This is based on the old KUHAP. Because this process had already been underway before the new KUHAP, the process refers to the old KUHAP,” he added.
Intense tension re-emerged when another of Yaqut’s lawyers asked a question about the principle that the actions of officials must be subject to the provisions in force at the time of the event.
“May I answer? You asked a question, right? I want to answer. Give me the opportunity to answer first. I have wanted to answer since the start,” he said.
He also stressed that the questions posed by the applicant’s counsel had essentially already been answered.
“What I have answered, the question from earlier has been asked back and forth; I have answered it. What applies is the investigation and prosecution process,” Erdianto said.
In the hearing, Yaqut’s counsel also referred to the expert’s earlier statements on the principle of legality in criminal law, including lex scripta, lex certa, and lex stricta.
That principle emphasises that criminal law must be written and not interpreted by analogy.
The counsel then questioned the expert’s statement that notification of a suspect status can be done verbally, not necessarily in writing.
In response to this, Erdianto explained that the phrase “diberitahukan” in legal provisions does not explicitly regulate that such notification must be in writing.