Yaqut Pretrial: Expert Highlights KPK Sprindik Issued Together with Suspect Designation
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.COM – A criminal-law expert from the Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta, Mahrus Ali, has highlighted the KPK’s issuance of the Sprindik (Surat Perintah Penyidikan) which he says was issued on the same day as the designation of a suspect in the case involving former Minister of Religious Affairs Yaqut Cholil Qoumas.
In court, Mahrus drew attention to several Sprindik issued by the KPK in the case, particularly Sprindik Number Sprin.Dik/01/Dik.00/01/01/2026 dated 8 January 2026.
‘On the same date a suspect was designated. That becomes a problem,’ said Mahrus while giving evidence as an expert for the applicant in the praperadilan (pre-trial) hearing of Yaqut against the KPK at the South Jakarta District Court, on Thursday (5/3/2026).
‘The end of an investigation is the designation of a suspect after investigators have collected at least two pieces of evidence. If on the same day the Sprindik is issued and there is immediately a suspect designation, then the question is when the process of seeking and gathering the evidence was carried out,’ he said.
Meanwhile, the last Sprindak was issued in 2026. According to him, the existence of a new Sprindik could raise legal issues if the context of its issuance is unclear.
Mahrus said Sprindik number 61A is basically not problematic if it relates only to the extension or addition of investigators. However, he questioned the substance of Sprindik number 1 issued on 8 January 2026.
To him, if Sprindik 1 is a new Sprindik for the same case, it could replace the previous Sprindik.
‘If it turns out Sprindik number 1 is not just an extension of personnel, then it could replace the old Sprindik. There cannot be two Sprindiks in the same case for one investigation process,’ he said.
Mahrus also assessed an error in the legal basis used in the Sprindik issued by the KPK. He referred to the provisions of Article 361 letter b KUHAP in Chapter XXII on transitional provisions governing when the old KUHAP and the new KUHAP can be used.
According to him, in that case the KPK is alleged to have used two different legal bases at once, namely the old KUHAP and the new KUHAP.
‘If a case later uses two KUHAPs, that must be incorrect. Article 361 already pins down when the old KUHAP is used and when the new KUHAP is used,’ he said.
He added that if the latest Sprindik is regarded as the start of a new investigation, then legally the new investigation begins on 8 January 2026.
The issue arises when a Sprindik is issued and a suspect designated on the same date. In his view, this could lead to ambiguity in the investigation process if the basis for the latest Sprindik is not explained in detail.