We may be politicking, but not discriminating: Marzuki

In the face of accusations of sluggishness and politicking in the handling of high profile cases, Attorney General Marzuki Darusman gives his side of the story. He talked to The Jakarta Post's Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak last Saturday, revealing his goals and achievements in office during the one-and-a-half years of his tenure. Below are excerpts from the interview:

Question: Many view that the Attorney General's Office has failed to carry out its work. What have the problems been?

Answer: The goal is to reach a turning point from the lowest ebb of people's trust of this office's performance -- which has yet to be obtained. Our strategy to reach this goal when we started work in November 1999 was to swiftly win cases which had already been investigated before my term, including that of former president Soeharto, the Bank Bali scandal, and human rights abuse in East Timor.

But the final settlement of the cases has yet to be reached. This delay has, unfortunately, raised a negative perspective as regards our legal system's effectiveness. Moreover, we have also lost two Bank Bali cases in court.

It is only recently that the public has started to realize that constraints on our legal system are not only at the prosecution level but also in the courts.

One conspicuous example is the verdict on Soeharto's crony Mohamad "Bob" Hasan, who only got two years of house arrest. Thank goodness, the higher court corrected this (to a six-year sentence of imprisonment). It proves that the problem lies in the whole legal system, which is not oriented to combating corruption.

Now, we're shifting our strategy by handling new cases: the misuse of the state's liquidity support funds; corruption in the state oil and gas company Pertamina and in the forestry ministry -- which we just started last September.

We have now achieved some progress in the investigations, including the naming of (businessman) Probosutedjo and (former minister of mines and energy) Ginandjar Kartasasmita as suspects. A case implicating businessman Prajogo Pangestu, the owner of timber company PT Musi Hutan Persada, is also underway. Although people remain skeptical, there is significant progress in the probe, which is sufficient for further prosecution.

We realize that people demand more from us. But we have really made an important breakthrough, by putting Soeharto before a court, convicting his crony Bob Hasan and son (Hutomo) Tommy (Mandala Putra), the symbols of past corruption. We have debunked the myth saying those people could not be touched by the law. And we're not stopping there.

President Abdurrahman Wahid has proposed shifting the burden of proof in corruption cases. How would this help your efforts?

The 1999 Anticorruption Law stipulates that a court may order a defendant to prove his innocence. But we cannot do this during investigation and prosecution. Should the paradigm (of a presumption of guilt) be put into effect, there would be many considerations involved, such as the possibilities of abusing basic rights or capital flight.

Although this may make people anxious at the beginning, we have to see its future benefit, including an investment-friendly country and an end to state losses, since there would no longer be any corruption.

However, there should be limitations and controls (over the presumption of guilt) or it may become a new source of corruption. Only a suspect can be ordered to disclose his private wealth to prove his innocence. And to control it, this should be held under the auspices of the Attorney General who delegates the power to shift the burden of proof to an investigator.

Have you received the form from the Audit Commission for Officials' Wealth? Will prosecutors have to fill them as the institution is prone to corruption?

I received it last week ... these are public rules ... All prosecutors at all levels will also get one.

Many say you have politicized the law.

First, upholding the law is closely related to politics. Law is about public affairs, and public affairs are about politics. And second, at the same time, people pay attention to our efforts in upholding the law. Public demands have become a new political factor, another political dimension.

People think we are politicking legal cases. But actually we are being selective. And this is inevitable as we have to pick those cases which are easier to uncover, to catch up with the momentum in winning back people's trust in the legal system.

We fully understand that being selective is a political act. From this point of view, yes we are politicking but not discriminative, by handling cases involving particular people and abandoning others. The only consideration (for selection) is adequate evidence.

How can you draw a firm line between a political and legal process?

We only adhere to the law. We cannot adjust our measures to any political agenda ... We have to avoid this office becoming the government's political tool. We hold on to that principle because upholding the law is not only about creating legal certainty but also about the people's sense of justice. And this would be abused if a single case at this office were to become a political object.

The other way to convince people that we're not playing politics is by handling cases in a professional way.

And third, by clarifying to the public the distinctions between what the President says and what this office does. The President should impart the political aspects of the law, while this office has to guarantee its impartiality.

Well, this cannot be fully done since, by law, this office is still part of the government. Our hope in the future is a more autonomous Attorney General's Office although it would still be a partner of the government.

But how can you ensure the public that you're not politicking when every step you take will always be considered having regard to the President's statements, indicating you have followed his orders?

Any progress on the part of this office may be said to be a success of the government as a whole. So if the President gets a political benefit from the cases now being handled by this office then it's merely (a result of) his skill ... If his statements mention a deadline for our work, this should be taken as encouragement. (Such statements) are not constraining and are not interventionist (in our work).

Last year he mentioned the suspension of legal proceedings against three tycoons, but we have now taken legal action against them. We have named Sjamsul Nursalim as a corruption suspect, while the case of Prajogo is under investigation.

Marimutu Sinivasan's is another case which we have reported to the House of Representatives. As a politician, the President has to use his wits to revive his honeymoon with the people. I want to be constructive on this matter.

How about the President's latest statement saying that you had been given orders to detain two people on April 15 and April 21 respectively?

What Gus Dur (Abdurrahman) said referred to our periodic reports of progress in each of the cases. I cannot reveal who these people are nor whether there will be any detentions. We'll make it public in good time. Moreover, not all suspects are subject to detention, only if necessary.

Do you really have a case against Ginandjar since he insists that he was just carrying out Soeharto's orders?

It's only part of his defense. Of course, Pak Ginandjar cannot say that he had a lot to do with a case which caused losses to the state. (Carrying out Soeharto's orders) is probably what happened at that time. But then there would never be any cases since everyone puts the blame on Soeharto, who issued the orders.

Moreover, every state official bears responsibility and, as also stated in the Criminal Code, a legal subject may reject his superior's order if these would result in a crime.

You have received many threats. How do you face such threats?

By psychological preparation. Yes, there are worries. But it's normal. The prime worry was the blast at the office. And from time to time, almost everyday, the police and the office's intelligence people inform me of another bomb threat. That's why I work outside the office, sometimes. I don't want to tempt fate.

Is that why you prefer not to be in your office too often?

There are other reasons. Security is the first. Second, I have to catch up on all the information of what's been going on around the office. The filter of inside information is coming from the past regime. I cannot get the information I need.

Examples are when I wanted to lift the suspension of investigation into Pak Soeharto's case and when I wanted to reexamine all we had done. All the information was held by former officials. We have gradually changed that situation.

And, there are people who want to give me information but refuse to see the Attorney General at the office. They're afraid of being seen. Because (there have been instances when) after they reached home, someone telephoned claiming to be from our office, asking for money in exchange for not touching the case concerning their "acquaintance".

So I should not meet those implicated in a case face to face. But I have to be objective and receive those who want to give me more information about a case.

The practice of blackmailing is a big problem in the office, especially considering the public's doubts about the prosecutors' integrity.

Third reason (why I'm not often at the office) is that I have to meet with the lawmakers.

Is it true that you have another office in a hotel?

It's not actually an office. Such meetings can take place (in a hotel lobby), financed by the office's tactical funds. It's not much and it's accounted for.

There are other accusations that I'm horse-trading cases. If it's true, it would be easily found out because people talk. And word would spread fast. But such rumors don't hang around very long because they are not true. Which cases are not going further because I met a particular person?

I was accused of taking US$25 million from Ginandjar so that I would not proceed with his case while he was in the U.S. It took me three months to convince people that I didn't take a cent. If I wanted to allay such rumors, I could have detained him right before he left Jakarta last year just for my personal satisfaction. But that's not what the law says.

Who's next? Prajogo? Just today in one newspaper I read that Prajogo may escape prosecution because I met him last year at the Kempinski Hotel. I don't even remember that event. We're still handling Prajogo's case.

I know my job is not a conventional one. Rumors come and go.