Hans David Tampubolon, Jakarta – The House of Representatives' Commission III on law and human rights has proposed a revision of a law that will give more power to the Witness Protection Agency (LPSK).
The decision came after a hearing on Thursday with LPSK leaders, who complained about their lack of authority in the much-vaunted fight against the police for custody of former National Police detective chief Comr. Gen. Susno Duadji.
"Commission III agrees to fully support the LPSK in taking all the necessary steps to formulate an academic approach on the revision of 2006 LPSK Law," said commission deputy chairman Fahri Hamzah, from the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), at the conclusion of the hearing.
The power of the LPSK as the authorized witness protection institution has come under public scrutiny in recent weeks following its failure to transfer Susno from police detention to its safe house.
Since being ousted from his post, Susno has blown the whistle on the extent of corruption within the police force. Instead of following up Susno's reports, the police have named him a suspect for his part in two bribery cases and detained him at the Mobile Brigade headquarters in Depok, West Java.
During the hearing on Thursday, a number of House legislators, such as Nudirman Munir from the Golkar Party, criticized the LPSK for moving too slowly to protect Susno.
"If something bad happens to Susno, then it will be better to dissolve the LPSK," Nudirman said. "The LPSK should have been more active in protecting him."
LPSK chairman Abdul Haris Semendawai, said the agency had been trying hard to protect Susno from any possible implication after he had exposed corruption in the police force.
"We do not agree with any statement saying that we are not active," he said. "We cannot unilaterally take someone into custody; there has to be an official request from the person who seeks protection."
He added that Susno's protection was not the LPSK's sole respon-sibility, but that of "all related stakeholders".
Haris said there were numerous articles in the LPSK law that needed revision in order to strengthen the agency. "Maybe the revision can provide a more substantial definition of a whistle blower, which is currently unclear," he said.
"The revision must also underline our authority to protect witnesses who are potentially under threat," he added.
"It will be a lot better if we have the authority to take the initiative [to protect witnesses]." Article 28 of the law stipulates that protection can only be given based on the witnesses' request.
The power of the LPSK has come under public scrutiny following its failure to transfer Susno from police detention to its safe house.