Yaqut's Lawyers Question Basis for Calculating State Losses in Hajj Quota Case

The legal team for former Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas has questioned the basis for calculating state losses in the alleged corruption case involving the hajj quota. They argue that the components used by the public prosecutor lack a direct causal relationship with the discretionary policy of distributing the additional quota on a 50:50 basis.

Yaqut’s lawyer, Mellisa Anggraini, identified at least three components linked to the state losses. First, the alleged receipt of money by certain parties, which she claims was never found to have flowed to Yaqut. Second, profits from the sale of hajj officer quotas by Special Hajj Organisers (PIHK) to pilgrims. Third, all profits of PIHK that dispatched pilgrims deemed ineligible were included in the calculation of state losses.

“The second component, regarding the officer quota sold by PIHK to pilgrims, goes even further. Firstly, the regulation of special hajj officers is strictly the domain of the Director General,” Mellisa said during a press conference in Cipete, South Jakarta, on Monday. According to her, the issue falls within the technical realm of hajj operations. She added that several components in the indictment, such as changes to the Siskohat system, are also technical matters not directly the responsibility of the minister.

Mellisa further questioned the relevance of PIHK profits and quota trading practices to Yaqut’s decision to establish the additional 50:50 quota distribution. She noted that the government actually struggled to absorb the available regular hajj quota. “It is proven that in 2026, even without an additional quota, they were unable to absorb it. Why? Due to time constraints,” she stated. She stressed that the decision on the additional quota distribution in 2024 cannot be separated from the factual conditions of the hajj operation at that time, including time limitations, new Saudi Arabian government policies, accommodation capacity, and pilgrim safety.

Meanwhile, another lawyer for Yaqut, Dodi Abdul Kadir, highlighted the definition of state loss, which he said must be concretely proven. He stated that state financial loss requires a reduction in state assets or rights resulting from an unlawful act with a direct causal link. “So there is a reduction in assets, an unlawful act, and they must be correlated,” Dodi said. He applied this principle to the hajj quota distribution, arguing that if the regular quota portion were enlarged, the state’s financial burden could actually increase because regular pilgrims receive subsidies. “For regular hajj, the state must subsidise Rp36 million per pilgrim. So the state, through the state budget, must disburse subsidies via BPKH,” he explained. Conversely, he noted that special hajj operations do not use state funds, as all costs are borne by the pilgrims through the PIHK. He therefore questioned how PIHK profits from dispatching pilgrims could be considered a state loss. If quota misuse was found, he argued, the specific parties involved should be investigated. “It must be publicised which PIHK dispatched pilgrims improperly,” Dodi said.

Dodi insisted that this issue must be distinguished from Yaqut’s policy in determining the additional quota distribution, as the alleged misuse of pilgrim dispatches is an operational matter with its own mechanisms and responsible parties. Ultimately, Dodi requested that the trial’s evidentiary process focus on one fundamental question: whether Yaqut’s policy truly correlates with a reduction in state assets or rights. “It must be proven in court whether there was an action by Mr Yaqut that correlates to a reduction in state assets or state rights,” he said. He also urged the public to monitor the trial to ensure the panel of judges does not simply accept the prosecutor’s indictment. “The court must not merely affirm the prosecutor’s indictment, but must truly examine objectively whether the charges are proven or not,” Dodi stated.