Yaqut's Legal Expert Says BAP in General Sprindik Cannot Be Used as Basis for Charging

JAKARTA — A criminal law expert from the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) in Yogyakarta, Mudzakkir, said that witness statements (BAP) prepared in a general investigation order (sprindik) cannot be used as evidence to designate a suspect in a sprindik that is specific. Mudzakkir emphasised that the evidence collected in a general sprindik cannot be directly used to designate a suspect in a sprindik that identifies the suspect. “It cannot then be that witness BAPs or seizures conducted under a general sprindik become the evidence or material for naming a suspect on 8 January,” said Mudzakkir, acting as an expert for the applicant, former Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, in a praperadilan hearing against the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) at the South Jakarta District Court, on Thursday (5/3/2026). He added that when the investigation already uses a specific sprindik, the process of proof must focus on the act allegedly committed by the person named in that sprindik. “Specific is specific because there is a subject. The subject focuses on the act he committed, not on others,” he said. “If investigators summon witnesses to be examined, they are giving testimony about a crime committed by another person. Because they are witnesses,” Mudzakkir said. He added that examination of a prospective suspect should focus on clarifying the acts alleged by investigators. “If examined as a suspect, the candidate suspect emphasises their statement as to what they have done, clarifying what the investigators allege as if there is material that is the act of a crime,” he said. According to him, a general sprindik should be followed by a specific sprindik that already mentions who is suspected as the perpetrator. “If it appears that a general one is issued, it must be followed by a specific one that already mentions who the perpetrator is,” he said. Earlier, the KPK asserted that the designation of Yaqut Cholil Qoumas as a suspect was based on the sufficiency of evidence. Investigators, the KPK said, have collected more than two lawful pieces of evidence. To date, investigators have also taken statements from more than 40 witnesses in the investigation of the case. “The designation of the applicant as a suspect has gone through a series of data collection, information, statements and indications so that the requirement of sufficiency of evidence through two pieces of evidence has been met,” the KPK legal team stated. Investigators have also secured electronic evidence, including one mobile phone and various other digital data. The KPK added that up to the time of the praperadilan response, the investigation into the case continues to complete the proof.