Two Judges Differ in Opinion, Seek Release of Ibrahim Arief: Here is Their Reasoning
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA – Two out of a total of five judges presiding over the alleged Chromebook corruption case expressed differing opinions or dissenting views, requesting that Ibrahim Arief, alias Ibam, the Technology Consultant at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Kemendikbudristek), be released from the case. The two judges in question, namely Member Judge II Eryusman and Member Judge IV Andi Saputra, concluded that Ibam clearly did not fulfil all the elements charged by the public prosecutor.
“Although it is true that there is a series of actions interconnected between one and the other, there is no direct and strong causality between the defendant’s actions or role and the direct crime,” stated Judge Andi during the verdict reading session at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court (PN Jakpus) on Tuesday (12/5/2026).
Judge Andi stated that in the case, Ibam only provided general input and did not direct towards a specific brand, but his input was “twisted” by the technical team from Kemendikbudristek.
Thus, there are many prominent differences between the specifications suggested by Ibam and the specifications in the review study document and Ministry of Education and Culture Regulation Number 5 of 2021. In addition, Judge Andi opined that Ibam had provided input regarding the weaknesses of Chromebooks to the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology for the 2019-2024 period, Nadiem Anwar Makarim, on 21 February 2020.
Judge Andi conveyed that Ibam also continued to provide input for the Chromebook prices to be re-evaluated by Kemendikbudristek, suggesting that the ministry conduct a Request for Information (RFI) to distributors to validate prices for greater competitiveness.
“This shows the defendant’s capacity is only as an information technology consultant and not a price consultant or financial consultant,” said Judge Andi.
On the other hand, Judge Andi assessed that Ibam did not receive remuneration from the principal so that his analysis or study would lead to a specific brand.
It was added that witnesses from the principal’s side in the trial also stated that they never met Ibam during the Chromebook laptop procurement process.
Thus, Judge Andi opined that the income of Rp163 million received by Ibam is legitimate earnings for his services as a consultant at Kemendikbudristek.
Meanwhile, regarding the increase in Ibam’s assets by Rp16.92 billion, continued Judge Andi, this resulted from the sale of Bukalapak shares that Ibam obtained while still working at Bukalapak and is not bound or affiliated with the tried case.
“We conclude that the defendant, as a consultant, has provided neutral advice to the ministry, where the party authorised to choose the consultant’s presented options is the ministry,” stated Judge Andi.