Unram Expert: Search in Ex-Jampidsus Case Justified as Procedurally Sound

A criminal law expert from Mataram University, Ufran Trisa, has assessed that the search conducted by police investigators in handling the case involving former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah can be justified as long as it is carried out based on legitimate authority and in accordance with criminal procedural law. According to Ufran, the confidentiality of a search is necessary in cases involving high-ranking officials or those with extensive networks to prevent the loss of evidence or disruption to the investigation process. The statement was made during a public discussion titled “Uncovering Money Laundering and Alleged Intellectual Actors Behind the Ex-Jampidsus Case: Testing the Independence and Integrity of Law Enforcement,” organised by the Millennial Activist Network (JAM) in Central Jakarta. Ufran noted a developing view in the public sphere claiming that the naming of Febrie Adriansyah as a suspect was procedurally flawed because it was not preceded by an examination as a prospective suspect. He suggested this view needs to be considered holistically by referring to Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014. He explained that the ruling indeed affirms the importance of providing a prospective suspect the opportunity to give a statement. However, this provision forms part of the legal considerations, not the operative ruling that is explicitly binding as an absolute requirement for naming a suspect. “Therefore, it is doctrinally inaccurate to conclude that investigators are obliged to examine a person first before naming them a suspect in every case. The assessment must be adapted to the characteristics of the case being handled,” Ufran said, as quoted on Saturday, 25 July 2026. According to him, the purpose of examining a prospective suspect is not to provide an opportunity to eliminate evidence, but to give the individual concerned space to explain the evidence that investigators have gathered so that the process of naming a suspect is not carried out arbitrarily. Nevertheless, Ufran stressed that this need must be distinguished from the interest of maintaining the confidentiality of a search operation. He explained that if a search plan is known in advance, there is a risk that electronic evidence could be deleted, documents destroyed, witnesses influenced, or statements between parties aligned, thereby hindering the substantiation of the case. “For this reason, a search conducted suddenly can be justified as long as it is carried out based on legitimate authority and procedures. The confidentiality of a search does not mean the suspect’s right to be examined can be ignored, but is part of the investigation strategy,” he said.