Yaqut's Praperadilan: Defence Team Outlines Five Points of Alleged Formal Defects in Suspect Designation

Jakarta — The defence team for former Religious Affairs Minister Yaqut Cholil Qoumas has disclosed five points alleging formal defects in the KPK’s designation of their client as a suspect, ahead of the final summation in the ongoing praperadilan (pretrial) hearing.

Yaqut’s defence co-ordinator Mellisa Anggraini emphasised that the KPK’s legal process is not in accordance with the principle of due process of law and risks flouting applicable legal procedures. ‘There are at least five formal defects that form the basis of this praperadilan application,’ Mellisa said in a written statement on Sunday (8 March).

First, the alleged defect concerns the designation of the suspect, performed before a formal audit of state losses. The KPK designated Yaqut as a suspect on 8 January 2026, while the official report from the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) did not become available until 24 February 2026.

Second, the defence team argues the designation was carried out by the leadership of the KPK rather than by investigators. Under Law Number 19 of 2019 on the KPK, the leadership is not an investigator or a public prosecutor. ‘This raises serious questions about the legality of the authority in the designation process,’ Mellisa said.

Third, the defendants say Yaqut never received an official designation letter; he only received a notification letter regarding his status. This practice is inconsistent with the provisions of Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 and Article 90(2) of Law Number 20 of 2005 on the KUHAP, which regulate the legitimate procedure for designating a suspect.

Fourth, the defence notes inconsistency in the KPK’s use of legal grounds in the investigative process. To issue the Investigation Warrant (Sprindik), the anti-corruption agency is said to have used two legal references, both the old KUHAP and the new KUHAP.

According to Mellisa, this creates legal uncertainty in the investigation process.

Fifth, the designation is said to be based on a ‘notula ekspose’ (the exposure minutes). They argue that the document is not an evidence instrument as defined by criminal procedure law. ‘Notula ekspose has no binding force to justify designating someone a suspect,’ Mellisa said.

Through this praperadilan application, the defence team hopes the panel to review all legal facts objectively and independently to uphold the principles of justice. The hearing is at an advanced stage and will soon proceed to the summation readings by both parties.