Yaqut Challenges Corruption Charges, Questions Missing Name in Indictment

Former Religious Affairs Minister for 2020-2024, Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, has filed an objection through his legal team regarding the alleged corruption case involving Indonesia’s hajj quota in 2023-2024. Yaqut’s advocate, Dodi Abdulkadir, explained that the objection was filed because the legal team believes there are a number of problems in the legal construction used by prosecutors to ensnare Yaqut.

“One of the things we are questioning is the disappearance of Fuad Hasan Masyhur’s name from the final part of the indictment, even though the name was mentioned several times in the series of events,” Dodi said when met after the hearing at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on Tuesday (11/8/2026).

Accordingly, Yaqut’s trial will continue on Tuesday (12/8/2026) with the agenda of the objection from the legal team. Dodi questioned why various mistakes made by other people are being held criminally accountable by Yaqut.

He therefore highlighted the role of Fuad, who has appeared since the issue of the additional hajj quota in 2020. He assessed that the case actually ignores various parties suspected of being involved in the practice of buying and selling or utilising the hajj quota.

In addition, the legal team disputes the allegation that Yaqut received money amounting to 271 thousand US dollars, where the indictment does not clearly explain the evidence of the receipt of that money. Dodi also questioned why bribery or gratification charges were not used if prosecutors are indeed alleging that a state official received money.

Another issue highlighted is the application of administrative government law. He assessed that Yaqut’s actions in his capacity as religious affairs minister in issuing policies should also be tested within the corridor of administrative government law.

“This means that as religious affairs minister, he has the authority to issue policies, make ministerial decisions, and the scope of testing of those policies is the scope of administrative government law,” he said.

Meanwhile, another of Yaqut’s lawyers, Mellisa Anggraini, highlighted the basis for calculating state financial losses amounting to Rp622 billion in the case.

According to Mellisa, the losses were built from three components: profits of Special Hajj Organisers (PIHK) from pilgrims who were dispatched, profits from the sale of officer quotas, and profits from dispatching pilgrims deemed not entitled to depart, as well as acceleration fees.

She questioned why profits received by PIHK from pilgrims’ money could be categorised as state financial losses.

“Where is the state money in these three components? The money came from pilgrims, was received by PIHK, and was enjoyed by PIHK,” said Melissa.

If there are individuals within the Ministry of Religious Affairs who received profits from such practices, she said, the matter should be constructed as alleged bribery or gratification, not automatically as state financial losses.