Yaqut's Camp Questions KPK's Unclear Application of Procedural Law in the Hajj Case
The defence team of former Indonesian Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas says the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has not clearly applied procedural law in handling the alleged corruption case over the determination of Hajj quotas and the organisation of the Hajj pilgrimage at the Ministry of Religious Affairs in 2023-2024. They argue that KPK has exceeded the boundaries of authority provided by law without addressing the alleged criminal offences.
Yaqut’s lawyer, Mellisa Anggraini, said that initially KPK used a general Investigation Order (Sprindik) in handling the case of the alleged extra Hajj quota corruption. In other words, no suspect had been designated when the Sprindik was signed. The responsible parties would be sought as the investigation proceeds. At that time KPK used the old Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP).
However, on 8 January 2026, KPK issued a new Sprindik that named Yaqut as a suspect. The timing of this Sprindik coincided with the implementation of the new KUHAP.
“Therefore, the procedural law that should be used is not the old law but the new KUHAP, including all provisions on the procedures and methods for designating a suspect,” Mellisa said while reading the repliek (reply) in the Pretrial hearing at the Pengadilan Negeri (PN) Jakarta Selatan, Wednesday (4/3).
Mellisa disclosed that her side has found numerous procedural errors committed by KPK in investigating the case of alleged extra Hajj quota corruption.
She grounded her argument on three pillars of testing that must be met in every suspect designation: the sufficiency and validity of evidence not being met; the fulfilment of procedures for designating a suspect under procedural law not being met; and KPK lacking authority to conduct investigations and designate Yaqut as a suspect.
“Even if the Respondent contends that the old procedural law should continue to be used, a basic question arises: why has the Applicant never received a designation letter up to now and instead only received a notice of designation? After all, the petition construction already states that Articles 90(1), (2), and (3) of the new KUHAP explicitly regulate obligations relating to designation and notification of designation as a suspect,” Mellisa stated.
“This further shows that the application of procedural law by the Respondent is unclear, inconsistent, and confusing,” she added.
The argument was delivered by Mellisa to counter the KPK’s Legal Bureau claim that Yaqut’s pretrial petition was error in objecto. Mellisa asserted that their pretrial petition has laid out in a clear, systematic and complete manner the reasons for the petition, especially regarding the existence of a designation that does not meet formal procedural requirements as determined by the procedural law and violations of applicable statutory provisions.
“The petition is by no means vague; rather it is sufficiently clear to be understood and examined by the Honourable Pretrial Judge,” she said.
During the investigation, KPK has conducted searches at several locations such as Yaqut’s residence in Condet, East Jakarta; a Hajj and Umrah travel agency in Jakarta; the home of a civil servant at the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Depok; and the PHU (Directorate General of Hajj and Umrah) at the Ministry of Religious Affairs.
Many items of evidence are said to be seized, including documents, Electronic Evidence (BBE), as well as motor vehicles and property.
According to calculations by the Audit Board (BPK), the state is said to have suffered losses amounting to Rp622,090,207,166.41 (Rp622 billion) from the alleged extra Hajj quota corruption for the 2023 and 2024 organising years.
The figure was released some time earlier, long after Yaqut and Ishfah were named and announced by the KPK as suspects.
(ryn/isn)