Unconvincing, predictable verdict in Akbar's case

Teten Masduki, Chairman Indonesian Corruption Watch, Jakarta

The law in Indonesia used to be helpless against those with political and monetary influence. But this time it departed from the usual practice. The Central Jakarta district court sentenced Akbar Tandjung to three years in prison, with his two accomplices Winfried Simatupang and Dadang Ruskandar getting an 18-month jail term each. All of them were found guilty of corruption in the case of misappropriation of Rp 40 billion in non-budgetary funds of the State Logistics Agency (Bulog).

Despite the surprising guilty verdict, the public does not seem to be convinced that justice was done. It is even widely believed that when Akbar appeals to the High Court or the Supreme Court, he will be acquitted as was the case with Bank Indonesia Governor Sjahril Sabirin.

Some even consider the court decision unfair, because it was too lenient for an act of corruption committed by a public official amid our economic difficulties. Based on Law No.20/2001 on corruption, perpetrators of this crime are liable to capital punishment if committed during an economic crisis, though the law is not retroactive. Akbar did his deed in 1999.

Others maintain that the verdict on Akbar is not worth debating as the political consequences remain unchanged. It will trigger political moves within the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Golkar Party to dismiss Akbar as leaders of both institutions. However, the DPR might not likely unseat Akbar given the current political oligarchy, which serves as the basis of post-Soeharto multiparty corruption.

The abuse of power by Akbar concerns the exercise of his political clout as state secretary (at the time) and Golkar chairman in siphoning off Bulog funds for purposes beyond the agency's core business. Akbar was then not only involved along with then president B.J. Habibie and Bulog chief Rahardi Ramelan in making the "policy" to procure basic necessities with Bulog funds, but also in its implementation.

As policy makers, Habibie and Akbar are not to blame as long as the policy proves to be free from corruption. But Akbar became unpardonable when he directly appointed Raudlatul Jananah Foundation as the party executing commodity procurement without bids, thus violating Presidential Decree No. 16/1994 on the procurement of goods and services. Furthermore, Akbar was not one of the officials authorized to carry out the safety net program. Regardless, the procurement of the basic necessities proved to be an invented scenario.

The Bulog funds were most likely used for political aims instead of the safety net (JPS) program. With the commitment of Rp 17.79 trillion in November 1998 from international donors through the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank for the three-year JPS program including the procurement of basic necessities, it was illogical for the government to spend Rp 40 billion Bulog funds in February 1999 for the same thing, while Bulog had handled its own food purchasing schemes.

Further doubts were raised when suspect Rahardi Ramelan denied attending the Cabinet session on Feb. 10, 1999 which Akbar said had decided on the use of Rp 40 billion Bulog funds for the procurement.

So where did the funds go? Presumably the money went to fund the general election campaign, though the expense was not included in Golkar's official accounts, thus escaping an audit by the elections committee.

In early March 1999 the Golkar Party organized a large-scale rally to declare the newly reformed party at Senayan stadium, at the initial stage of campaigning for the elections in July 1999. The prosecutor should have proven this suspicion by tracking down the flow of funds and the people cashing them from banks, as well as investigating the origin of the Rp 40 billion which co- defendant Winfried gave to the prosecutor, after the deception of a feed-the-poor project could no longer be covered up. But the prosecutor did not attempt to follow the money trail.

It seems particularly odd that the prosecutor only tried to prove that the "Mahakam scenario", developed by Akbar, was a legitimate, yet failed undertaking. In this scenario, Akbar, Rahardi and others met at the Mahakam hotel and agreed on the version that the money was to buy rice for the poor by using the Raudlatul Jannah foundation (Dadang) and distributed through a subcontractor (Winfried).

Rahardi then carefully explained the Mahakam scenario during his own trial. The whole point of which was to deflect the real use of the money, and thereby, in the logic of the prosecutors, judges and Akbar, exonerating Golkar.

This trial fell short of dealing with the true substance of corruption. The court failed to remove the cover-up shrouding the matter. Akbar is only an inevitable victim of the attempt to reduce the number of sacrifices to a minimum. Akbar could have followed Rahardi by withdrawing all his confessions, so that he would not become the only victim.

But that would have meant implicating Golkar. He would have also lost both posts of Golkar chairman and House Speaker. Akbar has instead fought staunchly to maintain these positions, refusing to resign in spite of the guilty verdict.