UGM Professor Highlights Weak Institutional Oversight in Febrie Adriansyah Corruption Case

The corruption case implicating former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), Febrie Adriansyah, is seen as a reflection of the weak oversight mechanisms between institutions and public control within Indonesia’s law enforcement system. Professor Dr. Phil. Gabriel Lele, a lecturer at the Department of Management and Public Policy at Gadjah Mada University (UGM), stated that the extensive authority held by law enforcement officials must be balanced with strong oversight mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power. The case came to light after investigators from the Police’s Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortastipidkor) seized evidence including 74.01 kilograms of gold bars and hundreds of billions of rupiah in various foreign currency notes from several search locations. According to Gabriel, the sheer scale of the evidence further underscores the importance of supervising institutions that wield significant power in law enforcement and anti-corruption efforts. “We are talking about an institution given the authority to eradicate corruption, yet it finds itself at the epicentre of corruption. When there is an accumulation of authority in one institution without adequate control from other institutions, especially from the public, that authority can be very easily abused,” he said on Tuesday (21/7/2026). Gabriel noted that institutions like Jampidsus have extensive authority in handling large-scale corruption or grand corruption cases. Therefore, this authority should go hand in hand with effective oversight mechanisms. “The principle of mutual control is very important. This control is not only carried out between government institutions, but it must also be ensured that the public has room to exercise oversight,” he said. He assessed that the alleged corruption case demonstrates that oversight cannot rely solely on internal institutional mechanisms. Inter-institutional oversight and public participation are also needed to ensure the law enforcement process runs transparently and accountably. Gabriel also highlighted reports regarding the possible transfer of the case handling to the Attorney General’s Office. He believes this step could potentially create psychological and institutional problems because the case involves a high-ranking official within the same institution. “If you ask me, that could be said to be merely a cooling-down strategy. But at the same time, it becomes a hot potato for the Attorney General’s Office. How can they resolve a case involving their own high-ranking official?” he questioned. He added that this situation could potentially affect public trust in the case handling process. Therefore, he considers transferring the case to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to be a more appropriate choice to safeguard the independence of the investigation. “The most ideal solution is to transfer the case to the KPK. If the Attorney General’s Office handles it, there are psychological and institutional constraints, and I don’t think the public believes the case can be thoroughly investigated by them,” he stated.