Three NTB DPRD Members File Objections, Question the Status of Other Bribe Recipients
Three members of the West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) Provincial Legislative Council (DPRD NTB), defendants in the gratification case over ‘silent money’, have filed objections to the prosecutors’ indictment. They are Hamdan Kasim, Indra Jaya Usman (IJU), and Muhammad Nashib Ikroman, also known as Acip.
In the objections read in the courtroom of the Corruption Court (Tipikor) in Mataram, the defendants raised questions about the legal status of other NTB DPRD members who received bribes.
Defendant Hamdan Kasim, through his legal counsel, Emil Siain, stated that in the prosecutors’ indictment Hamdan is charged as a bribe-giver, while the recipients’ legal status is unclear.
“The defendant (Hamdan Kasim) is charged as the giver. Meanwhile, the recipients’ legal status is unclear,” Emil said, on Thursday (5/3/2026).
Hamdan Kasim is alleged in the indictment to have given money to a number of NTB DPRD members for the 2024-2025 period, totaling Rp 450 million. The breakdown is Rp 100 million to Lalu Irwansyah Triadi, Rp 170 million to Harwoto, and Rp 180 million to Nurdin Marjuni.
With the unclear status of the recipients, prosecutors’ indictment was said to be incomplete. “This renders the indictment’s structure incomplete,” he said.
The argument also extended to the element of mens rea, which he claimed was not clearly described by the prosecutors. According to him, the prosecutors did not detail what acts were intended to be influenced and what decision or official action was to be halted.
“Without such explanations, the elements of bribery become unclear,” he said.
Emil, a familiar nickname, asked the panel of judges to declare the prosecutors’ indictment null and void by operation of law. He argued that the indictment contains numerous errors, including regarding Hamdan Kasim’s identity, and is vague and incomplete.
“Stop the examination of this case. Restore the defendant’s good name,” he said.
Meanwhile defendant Muhammad Nashib Ikroman, alias Acip, argued that from the outset the handling of the case has been inconsistent and unbalanced in the enforcement of the law. He noted that no other NTB DPRD member who received money has been implicated.
The NTB DPRD members who received money from the accused Acip listed are Wahyu Apriawan Riski, Rangga Danu Mainaga Aditama, Hulaimi, Ruhaiman, Salman and Muliadi, with a total of Rp 950 million.
“These names are explicit recipients and form part of the case’s construction. Yet during the prosecution, they were only directed at the person suspected of being the giver,” Acip said as he read his objections.
As for the defendant Indra Jaya Usman alias IJU, through his legal counsel Irpan Suriadiata, he said the prosecutors, in drafting the indictment, were neither meticulous nor clear.
“Because the indictment does not consider legal logic or the sequence of events,” he argued.
In the indictment, he continued, the prosecutors did not show the source of funds used by IJU to give to six other NTB DPRD members.
“There is no evidence that regional government funds were diverted or moved for those interests, and there is no evidence that any party gave funds to the defendant to then be handed to NTB DPRD members,” he said.
The NTB DPRD members who received money from IJU are Lalu Arif Rahman Hakim, Humaidi, Marga Harun, Yasin, Muhannan Mu’min Mushonnaf and Burhanudin, totaling Rp 1.2 billion. The source of the funds, according to Irpan, remains unclear in the indictment.
“The absence of a funds source is a fundamental flaw in the indictment’s construction because it is impossible to have a payment without a clear origin of funds, and it is impossible to have a payer who can be criminalised without a recipient who can be criminalised as well,” he stated.
He asked the judges to declare the prosecutors’ indictment not in compliance with the requirements, to rule the indictment vague for being poorly and incompletely drafted, and to declare the prosecutors’ indictment null and void by operation of law.
“Declare the prosecutors’ indictment null and void by operation of law,” he concluded.
(hsa/hsa)