Yaqut's Legal Team Argues Indictment Fails to Specify Defendant's Actions
The legal advisory team for Yaqut Cholil Qoumas has stated that the public prosecutor’s response to the objection or exception does not address the fundamental issue in the indictment, namely the absence of a concrete description of the active conduct alleged against Yaqut. The legal team hopes the panel of judges will examine this matter before issuing an interim ruling.
“The public prosecutor repeatedly mentioned that there was active conduct by the defendant that benefited others and caused state financial losses. However, this active conduct was never described in the indictment and was then shifted to be a principal matter to be examined during the trial. We hope the panel of judges will note that in reality no conduct by Yaqut is clearly described in the indictment,” said Mellisa Anggraeni, a member of Yaqut Cholil Qoumas’s legal advisory team.
In line with this, Yaqut asserted that he never gave orders to anyone to seek or obtain benefits from the organisation of the hajj pilgrimage. “There was no order whatsoever from me to anyone to seek or obtain benefits from the hajj pilgrimage process, whether fees, acceleration, or whatever it may be called. There was never an order from me,” said Yaqut.
Yaqut also stressed that the distribution of additional hajj quotas could not be decided unilaterally by the Indonesian government. The policy had to be based on an agreement with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the highest authority for hajj organisation in its territory.
The agreement on the configuration of the additional quota distribution was set out in a memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia and the Minister of Hajj of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 8 January 2024, which was also witnessed by the Chair of Commission VIII of the Indonesian House of Representatives. According to Mellisa Anggraeni, the memorandum of understanding clearly states a 50:50 configuration for the additional quota distribution. Without the approval of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the additional quota distribution could not be implemented.
“As we have already explained in the objection, the basis for the policy decision was of course an evaluation of the previous year’s hajj organisation. In 2023 there were incidents and a fairly high death rate, while the additional quota distribution was only 8,000. In 2024, the additional quota was much larger, namely 20,000. That was certainly a consideration for the Ministry of Religious Affairs: how to absorb the quota as fully as possible without neglecting safety,” said Mellisa.
She added that Indonesian hajj pilgrims include regular hajj pilgrims and special hajj pilgrims. A total of 10,000 additional quotas were allocated to regular pilgrims who had not originally been scheduled to depart in 2024. According to the legal team, the remaining quota still needed to be managed by considering absorption capacity, service capacity at home and abroad, and the obligation to maintain trust in relations between countries.
The legal advisory team stressed that maximum quota absorption was not solely intended to accommodate special hajj pilgrimage organisers. The policy was also related to the interests of pilgrims who had been waiting a long time and the responsibility of the Indonesian government to fulfil the quota agreed with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Yaqut’s legal advisory team hopes the panel of judges’ ruling will be based on an objective examination of the indictment and all arguments in the objection.
Yaqut stated that he continued to respect the public prosecutor’s response and the entire trial process. “We respect the entire legal process and will follow it as well as possible. We believe and are very confident that the panel of judges will assess this case objectively, wisely and judiciously,” said Yaqut.