Yaqut's Legal Team Claims Suspect Designation in Hajj Quota Case is Invalid

The legal team of former Religious Affairs Minister (Menag) Yaqut Cholil Qoumas has stated that the law enforcement process in the alleged corruption case concerning additional hajj quotas conducted by the KPK is invalid.

Yaqut’s legal team based their argument on three pillars of testing that must be satisfied in every suspect designation, namely: the condition and provision of sufficiency of evidence that has not been met, the fulfilment of suspect designation procedures according to legal procedure has not been met, and the KPK does not have the authority to conduct investigation and designate Yaqut as a suspect.

“The petitioner requests that Your Honour the Pre-Trial Judge test the validity of the suspect designation against the Petitioner by the Respondent based on the aspect of evidence sufficiency requirements, procedural compliance, and the Respondent’s authority as determined by applicable legislation,” said Yaqut’s lawyer, Mellisa Anggraini, while reading the pre-trial petition in the courtroom of Oemar Seno Adji District Court (PN) Jakarta Selatan, Tuesday (3 March).

Mellisa stated that the procedure for suspect designation has been regulated in a limited manner in the provisions of Articles 90(2) and (3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code, namely that the suspect designation must be set forth in a Suspect Designation Letter signed by the Investigator and communicated to the suspect no later than 1 day after the letter is issued, and must include the suspect’s identity, a brief description of the case, and the suspect’s rights.

“In the present case, until this pre-trial petition was filed, the Petitioner only received a Letter of Notification of Suspect Designation dated 9 January 2026, whilst the Suspect Designation Letter as required by Articles 90(2) and (3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code has never been received,” said Mellisa.

Additionally, she stated that the designation of Yaqut as a suspect does not meet procedural requirements because it does not apply the transitional provisions and applicable legal provisions, namely Articles 618 and 622 of the new Criminal Code and Article 361(b) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.

On the contrary, she said, the suspect designation is instead based on suspicion under Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Offences (Corruption Law) as amended and supplemented by Law 20/2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Offences (Corruption Law) as well as the provisions of Article 55 of the old Criminal Code or old provisions which under the transitional regime have been declared revoked and no longer applicable.

“Therefore, the suspect designation in question does not comply with the procedure for applying the law in force at the time the suspect designation was made,” said Mellisa.

“Consequently, the suspect designation in question must be declared invalid and without binding legal force,” she added.

Insufficient evidence

Mellisa revealed that the designation of Yaqut as a suspect does not meet the provisions of Article 90(1) of the new Criminal Procedure Code.

This is because the minimum standard of two pieces of evidence is positioned not merely as quantity, but as two valid and relevant pieces of evidence that existed before the suspect designation was made, which is consistent with Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 dated 19 April 2016 concerning the Prohibition of Case Review of Pre-Trial Decisions and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014.

In the case in question, namely Articles 2(1) and/or 3 of the Corruption Law, after Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 which deleted the word “can” before the element “harm to state finances or the state economy” caused the element “harm to state finances or the state economy” to be declared a material offence which requires state loss that is real and certain (actual loss) and can be calculated rather than merely potential loss.

This is in line with the definition of state loss in Law Number 1 of 2004 concerning State Treasury and Law Number 15 of 2006 concerning the State Audit Board (BPK).

Therefore, explained Mellisa, the evidence that is valid and has relevance to the element of state loss must be in the form of audit results or reports of state loss calculations that are declared or determined by the competent authority according to applicable legislation.

“At the time the Suspect Designation was made by the Respondent, there was no evidence in the form of audit results or reports of state loss calculations from the competent authority. Therefore, the Suspect Designation against the Petitioner by the Respondent does not yet meet the minimum requirement of sufficient evidence and therefore must be declared invalid and without binding legal force,” she said.

Yaqut, together with his Special Staff named Ishfah Abidal Aziz alias Gus Alex, was designated by the KPK as a suspect in the case of alleged corruption concerning additional hajj quotas. However, neither of them has yet been detained.

Nevertheless, the KPK has already requested the Directorate General of Immigration to once again prevent Yaqut and Ishfah from leaving the country for 6 months until 12 August 2026.

In the ongoing investigation process, the KPK has already searched several locations such as Yaqut’s residence in Condet, East Jakarta, the office of a hajj and umrah travel agency in Jakarta, the residence of Civil Servants of the Religious Affairs Ministry in Depok, and the office of the Directorate General of Hajj and Umrah Administration (PHU) of the Religious Affairs Ministry.

Many items of evidence allegedly related to the case have been seized. These include documents, electronic evidence, vehicles, and properties.

The final calculation of state loss in this case has just been completed by auditors of the State Audit Board (BPK). At that time, the KPK estimated state loss at Rp1 trillion.