What is so fishy about Akbar Tandjung's case?

What is so fishy about Akbar Tandjung's case?

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

One does not need to be a lawyer to smell something fishy
about the outcome of Akbar Tandjung's trial. The verdict has
created the impression that the judges were eager to be relieved
of their task as soon as possible, leaving it to a higher court.

Faced on the one hand with seemingly strong support for Akbar,
particularly from Golkar party and its sympathizers, and equally
if not even stronger and widespread demands in society on the
other for severe punishment for him, they passed what looked like
a fine compromise of a three-year sentence. In fact, they only
succeeded in making both camps extremely unhappy and in
prolonging the controversy with all of its possible
ramifications, legal as well as political. If Akbar was proven
guilty, as they have explained at length, he should naturally
deserve more than just three years, far short of the maximum
sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

They seemed to be more concerned with saving their own skins
than taking part any further in facing the gigantic and
apparently insurmountable challenge of seriously combating
corruption in the country. That seems to explain why they did not
add the requirement that the sentence be immediately executed by
putting Akbar in prison right away, knowing full well that he
would lodge an appeal with a higher court.

That would delay the process, to say the least. But of greater
significance, they helped further in rendering the judicial
system in this country less credible. After all, the further
implications of Akbar Tandjung's trial ought to be seen and
assessed as it relates to that of Sjahril Sabirin, whose earlier
verdict had simply been overturned by the Jakarta High Court.

Above all, the credibility of the Indonesian judicial system
is being seriously questioned by the international community
since the trial of human rights violators in connection with
post-referendum violence in East Timor before an ad hoc Human
Rights Tribunal. It was a mockery of justice when all those in
uniform, of the Indonesian Military (TNI) as well as the police,
were acquitted, while the former civilian governor of East Timor,
Abilio Jose Osorio Soares, was sentenced to three years
imprisonment.

Such a verdict went far beyond reason in view of the fact that
the human rights law stipulates a minimum punishment of 10 years
-- although to my knowledge most criminal laws provide maximum
rather than minimum punishment. As Abilio was sentenced to three
years imprisonment, the question is, was he or was he not found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

Indeed, so much depends on the nation's united efforts toward
dealing with ever-increasing crime and lawlessness, and thus the
supremacy of the law. The promotion of stability and security, on
which economic recovery depends, reasonably free from all forms
of corruption is crucial, thus liberating the nation from the
ever-worsening multidimensional crisis.

However, quo vadis supremacy of law in the light of bickering
sectarian-oriented lawmakers who only produce poor legislation
and crooked and distorted constitutional and political reform,
disregard ethics and rules of the game, and law-enforcing
agencies, particularly the police and the judicial system, the
judges, attorneys and lawyers who are vulnerable to corrupt
practices and political interference in one form or another?

I will not touch on the question of whether or not Akbar
Tandjung should resign. It is not even worth arguing anymore, for
I know the usual arguments against it. It is an ethical question
that no one can or will provide a proper answer, or people are
loathe to answer. Members of our political elite are mostly
beyond the pale.

Besides, we have been bungling over so many problems, mainly
because no one is really willing to claim or bear responsibility:
The problem of illegal Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia,
forest fires in Sumatra and Kalimantan in the current dry season,
almost certainly followed by floods in the coming rainy season,
security problems in Aceh, Poso, and Papua, you name it!

Where are we really heading? When will we ever learn?