Witnesses bicker over corruption law
Witnesses bicker over corruption law
JAKARTA (JP): Two expert witnesses gave contradicting
testimony on Wednesday over the authority of Attorney General
Marzuki Darusman to order the arrest and investigation into
former minister of mines and energy Ginandjar Kartasasmita over
his alleged involvement in a graft case.
In a hearing at the South Jakarta District Court, former head
of the Jakarta Military High Court Col. (ret) Eddy Purnomo said
the Indonesian Military (TNI) chief, along with the military
police and the military prosecutors, should have conducted the
investigation.
"It is in line with Article 69 of Law No. 31/1997 on military
tribunals. We have to refer to the law because Ginandjar was an
active military officer when the case occurred between 1992 and
1995," said Eddy.
Ginandjar, who served as minister of mines and energy from
1988 to 1993 and later as coordinating minister for the economy,
finance and industry for the following five years, was an Air
Force's vice marshall before retiring in May 1996.
Eddy cited Article 9 of the law which stipulates that a
military officer should be tried in a military court.
"We cannot refer to Law No. 3/1971 on corruption, either, as
it has been replaced by a 1997 law, also on corruption," he said.
In handling Ginandjar's case, the Attorney General's Office
has been referring to the 1971 law, especially Articles 25 and 26
regarding bringing a soldier to court.
Article 25 stipulates that any trial of a corruption case
committed by a soldier and a civilian is held by a civilian
court, while Article 26 stipulates that the attorney general
leads or coordinates the investigation of cases, involving
military officers and civilians.
Meanwhile, legal expert Harkristuti Harkrisnowo from
University of Indonesia, who testified after Eddy, said there was
nothing unlawful about the investigation and the arrest conducted
by the Attorney General's Office based on the 1971 law.
"The law that should be applied upon a case is the one which
was valid when the crime occurred," Harkristuti said.
The government has issued the latest anti-corruption Law No.
31/1999.
"There's no significant difference between the 1999 and the
1971 laws. But legally, we choose the one which was more
favorable, that is the older law," Harkristuti said.
The only mistake that the Attorney General made, she said, was
asking for the TNI chief's permission to investigate and arrest
Ginandjar.
"That was definitely a blunder. The Attorney General has the
authority, so he has to be confident with it," Harkristuti said.
However, she said, the blunder would have an impact on the
legal status of the investigation and the arrest.
During the hearing, one of Ginandjar's lawyers O.C. Kaligis
accused Harkristuti of siding with the Attorney General.
Presiding Judge Rusman Dani Achmad told Kaligis to calm down
and not to force his opinions on others.
Ginandjar is being accused of abusing his power in his
capacity as the minister of mines and energy in several
government contracts between 1992 and 1995, which had allegedly
caused some US$24.8 million in losses to the state.
The case centers on the deals between state-owned oil and gas
company Pertamina and privately-run PT Ustraindo Petro Gas which
allegedly violated regulations on a technical assistance
agreement because they covered oil fields which were still
productive at that time.
Ginandjar has been detained at the Attorney General's Office
detention house since Friday.
He filed a lawsuit on April 3 with the South Jakarta District
Court challenging the validity of the investigation and the
arrest.
His also questioned the decision of the Attorney General's
Office to exclude the period of his hospital treatment from the
detention period.
Although the arrest warrant on Ginandjar was issued on March
31, the 20-day detention was only effective from April 7 when
state prosecutors transferred him from Pertamina Hospital to the
Attorney General's Office detention house.
The Attorney General's Office, represented by a team of
lawyers led by Barman Zahir, however, defended its authority to
set the detention period.
The verdict will be issued next Monday. (hdn)