Agus Hidayat – Although Tommy Suharto may be facing the death penalty if convicted, the charges against him contain many weaknesses. A good opportunity for his defense team, perchance?
The hands of the clock moved inexorably towards 9am. On Wednesday morning last week, the traffic on Jalan Gajah Mada, Central Jakarta was heavy. In front of the Central Jakarta District Court, hundreds of police personnel were seen standing by. The entrance to the courthouse, normally open to all, was tightly guarded this time with only one person being allowed to enter at a time.
Security in the courthouse grounds and in the building itself was even tighter. Anyone wishing to enter the courtroom on the third floor had to show an identity card. On the second floor, identity documents were surrendered to officials and exchanged for a passes to enter the courtroom. Metal detectors were also being used to examine all those entering the courtroom.
The security was extraordinary. But then again, there was also an extraordinary prisoner in the dock, namely Hutomo Mandala Putra alias Tommy Suharto, 40 years of age. The favorite son of the former Indonesian president, although sitting in the defendant's chair, appeared calm, dressed in a yellow batik short. The hearing commenced on time at 10am, with the panel of judges consisting of Presiding Judge Amiruddin Zakaria and Associate Judges Andi Samsan Nganro and I Ketut Gede. Hundreds of spectators crowded courtroom number 2 on the third floor, including dozens of tall, well-built and dark-complexioned gentlemen, said to be Tommy's bodyguards.
Tommy finds himself in the dock this time in connection with what he allegedly did during his time on the run following the Supreme Court's overturning of his earlier acquittal in the Bulog land-swap case. Public prosecutors Andi Rachman Asbar and Hasan Madani took turns to read out the indictment against Tommy. The indictment itself consisted of four principal charges, to wit, possession of firearms at Jalan Alam Segar in Jakarta, possession of firearms at the Cemara Apartments, conspiring to bring about the murder of Supreme Court Justice Syafiuddin Kartasasmita, and flight from justice.
In response to the indictment, Tommy's defense team, represented by Elza Syarief, failed to submit a preliminary defense statement. Elza, however, took the opportunity of making a political statement condemning trial by the press and the molding of public opinion so as to prejudice her client. According to Juan Felix Tampubolon, one of Tommy's lawyers, the defense failed to submit a defense statement to avoid time wasting. The defense wished to focus on the substance of the case rather than becoming bogged down in procedural issues. Meanwhile, according to Elza, the reason was to satisfy the public's desire to see the truth behind the case emerge as soon as possible. The defense wanted to cut to the substance of the case rather than challenge procedural aspects of the indictment.
However, according to legal observer Bambang Widjojanto, the decision not to submit a preliminary defense statement was taken for strategic reasons. A preliminary defense statement is designed to highlight inadequacies in the indictment, which would then have to be corrected by the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution would incidentally be given additional time to prepare a more watertight indictment. If this were to happen and the charges tightened up, this could be prejudicial to Tommy's defense. Given the move by Tommy's defense team, the prosecution might proceed without being made aware of the loopholes in its indictment.
Whatever the case, the strategy of Elza Syarief and her colleagues would already appear to have produced results. One only had to see how the prosecutors were left floundering when the defense passed over the opportunity to make a defense statement. The prosecutors will now have to present their witnesses directly at the next session. Hasan Madani as good as admitted to Wuragil from the Tempo News Room that his side were not yet ready to call witnesses. This was because he had expected a defense statement to be submitted so that witnesses would not be called for some time yet. Although appearing taken aback, the state prosecutors claimed that they would call seven witnesses, albeit with some difficulty. "It's just that I have to seek out those witnesses who are relevant to the indictment," said Andi Rachman Asbar.
Aside from the procedural issues, Bambang Widjojanto was of the opinion that the charges contained many weaknesses. According to Bambang, the strongest charge concerned Tommy's flight from justice. The other three charges would be easy to dispose of. This was because the arms-possession and conspiracy to murder charges all revolved around witness testimony in court. In fact, before the trial had even begun, Noval dan Mulawarman had already retracted their statements implicating Tommy. The arms charges would also be highly dependent on alibi evidence and the statement of Hetty Siti Hartika. Bambang was convinced that there was a strong probability the witnesses would be interfered with and that the course of justice could be perverted. "There is a major possibility that the charges will be defeated," asserted Bambang. This has given rise to suspicions that the prosecution has deliberately laid weak charges against Tommy. According to Bambang, Tommy would do "anything" to escape the clutches of the law.
Andi Rachman Asbar strongly denied all such rumors. "I put my faith in almighty God and won't allow myself to be swayed by anything," he said. Andi, who is of Bugis origin, appeared optimistic. And like the prosecution, Andi Samsan Nganro, one of the judges hearing the case, promised to perform his duty to the best of his abilities.
Andi Rachman categorically denied that the charges against Tommy were flawed. While he acknowledged the possibility that witnesses might be interfered with and that statements could be retracted, he nevertheless had every confidence in the ongoing judicial process. According to Andi, there were rules of evidence that meant that statements could not subsequently be retracted without good reason being shown. The grounds for retracting the statements would be investigated. If they were found to have been fabricated, then the statements would stand. These issues would all subsequentlly be dealt with by the court