Yaqut's camp: Prosecutors misinterpreted hajj financing and quota allocation
The legal counsel for former Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, Mellisa Anggraini, believes that the Public Prosecutor at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) misinterpreted the decision regarding hajj financing and the distribution of additional quotas.
This was conveyed by Mellisa after accompanying Yaqut during the continuation of the trial for the alleged corruption case involving additional hajj quotas for 2023-2024 at the Corruption Court (Tipikor) at the Central Jakarta District Court on Friday (21/8).
Mellisa stated that the two matters are separate decisions. However, according to her, the prosecutor appeared to pit the government’s agreement with the DPR on hajj financing against the decision on quota distribution configuration.
“The public prosecutor cannot distinguish between them and has misinterpreted which decision concerns hajj financing and which concerns quotas,” said Mellisa at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Friday (21/8).
Mellisa emphasised that the DPR’s authority to decide on hajj quota configuration only exists under the new Hajj Law.
“So, it is as if the agreement with the DPR is being pitted against the financing agreement as though it were the quota distribution agreement. They are different, because the DPR’s authority to participate in deciding quota configuration only exists under the new Hajj Law,” Mellisa explained.
“The old law did not have that. So, they are indeed pitting these two decisions against each other as if Gus Yaqut, as Minister of Religious Affairs, had violated the law,” she continued.
Mellisa also refuted the prosecutor’s indictment which stated that the distribution of additional hajj quotas was intended to accommodate the interests of Special Hajj Organisers (PIHK).
According to her, the distribution of hajj quotas is not solely related to PIHK, but also concerns the safety and security of hajj pilgrims.
In fact, the distribution of hajj quotas involves the interests of the Indonesian government and Saudi Arabia.
“Whose interest is this maximum quota absorption? Is it the interest of the Indonesian Government in maintaining its good name before Saudi Arabia? Is it the interest of pilgrims whose queue is already long? And the pilgrims are not only regular pilgrims,” she said.
She stressed that the safety of hajj pilgrims and the government’s capacity were the primary considerations in the distribution of hajj quotas. If forced, Mellisa said the unabsorbed remaining quota would be detrimental to Indonesia.
“If regular pilgrims can only absorb 10,000, then should we simply discard the remainder? It should not be viewed solely as benefiting PIHK, but as a greater interest because the one who requested the additional quota was the President, followed by an agreement between the two countries,” she added.
Mellisa stated that the Indonesian government cannot unilaterally determine the distribution of additional hajj quotas. She said the decision must be based on an agreement with Saudi Arabia.
“Once again, regarding the policy for hajj organisation, Indonesia cannot decide on its own. Indonesia cannot decide on its own how many numbers should be configured for quota distribution, especially additional quotas,” she said.
“Based on and as stipulated in the MoU dated 8 January 2024,” she continued.
Yaqut is charged with causing state losses of Rp622,090,207,166.41 (Rp622 billion) in the alleged corruption case involving additional hajj quotas for 2023-2024.
The prosecutor stated that the unlawful acts were committed by Yaqut together with three other defendants: Yaqut’s Special Staff member Ishfah Abidal Azis, also known as Gus Alex; Maktour Operations Director Ismail Adham; and Kesthuri Association Chairman who is also Commissioner of PT Raudah Eksati Utama, Asrul Azis Taba.
The state loss figure is based on the Investigative Audit Report of the Supreme Audit Agency of the Republic of Indonesia.
According to the prosecutor, the filling of additional special hajj quotas for 2023-2024 was carried out in contravention of applicable legal provisions with the aim of accommodating requests from the PIHK Association.