Unram Expert: Search in Ex-Jampidsus Case Justified as Procedurally Sound
Jakarta, VIVA – Ufran Trisa, a criminal law expert at the University of Mataram, has assessed that the searches carried out by police investigators in the case involving former Jampidsus (Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office for Special Crimes) head Febrie Adriansyah can be justified, provided they were conducted under lawful authority and in accordance with criminal procedural law.
According to Ufran, confidentiality of a search is precisely what is needed in cases involving high-ranking officials or those with extensive networks, in order to prevent the loss of evidence or disruption of the investigation process.
The statement was made during a public discussion titled “Uncovering Money Laundering and the Alleged Intellectual Actors Behind the Former Jampidsus Case: Testing the Independence and Integrity of Law Enforcement”, organised by the Millennial Activist Network (JAM) in Central Jakarta.
Ufran noted that a view has developed in the public sphere claiming that naming Febrie Adriansyah as a suspect was procedurally flawed because it was not preceded by questioning as a suspect candidate. According to him, this view must be considered in full by reference to Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014.
He explained that the decision indeed affirms the importance of giving a suspect candidate room to provide testimony. However, that provision forms part of the legal considerations, not the operative ruling (amar putusan) that is explicitly and bindingly an absolute requirement for naming a suspect.
“Therefore, doctrinally it is not accurate to conclude that investigators must always question a person first before naming them as a suspect in every case. The assessment must be adjusted to the characteristics of the case being handled,” said Ufran, quoted on Saturday, 25 July 2026.
According to him, the purpose of questioning a suspect candidate is not to provide an opportunity to destroy evidence, but rather to give the person concerned room to respond to the evidence already gathered by investigators, so that the naming of a suspect is not done arbitrarily.
Nevertheless, Ufran stressed that this need must be distinguished from the interest of maintaining the confidentiality of search operations.
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 testimony between parties coordinated, all of which would hinder the process of proof.
“Therefore, a search conducted suddenly can be justified as long as it is carried out based on lawful authority and procedure. Confidentiality of a search does not mean the suspect’s right to be questioned can be ignored, but rather it is part of investigative strategy,” he said.