Unconvincing, predictable verdict in Akbar's case

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.