Jakarta – Antigraft advocates demanded on Monday that the Supreme Court accept an appeal request from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to convict Bekasi Mayor Mochtar Muhammad in a bribery case.

"The Supreme Court should accept the KPK's appeal against the Bandung Corruption Court ruling that acquitted Mochtar Mohammad," Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) activist Emerson Yuntho told a press conference.

Mochtar was accused of multiple graft incidents, including the alleged payment of Rp 900 million (US$99,000) to members of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), to have Bekasi's financial report approved. On Oct. 11, the Bandung court acquitted the mayor despite many facts pointing to the mayor's illicit conduct.

Emerson said that according to an ICW study, the judges presiding over the case sidestepped important facts during the proceedings and misapprehended discretion, which was also not deemed serious when trying the case.

"The judges failed to consider pivotal facts, such as key witness testimony, and orders from the mayor to a staffer who bribed Bekasi councilors to approve the proposed 2010 city administration budget," Emerson said.

The KPK filed the appeal request in November. The case attracted attention because the KPK was known for winning every corruption case it brought to court – until Mochtar's case, which became the first defeat for the antigraft body.

Critics, however, said the weak prosecution from the KPK might have contributed to Mochtar's acquittal. During the trial at the Bandung Corruption Court, the KPK's prosecutors demanded that Mochtar be sentenced to 12 years in prison and pay fines of Rp 300 million for his alleged graft.

Adnan Pasliadji, a former prosecutor observing the case, said that most of the prosecutors' indictments were proved during the trial's sessions. "The judges seemed to deliberately bend logical considerations to sidetrack the case's substantial problems," said Adnan, who also contributed to the ICW study.

He said if he had been the prosecutor in the case, he would have focused on the important facts during the trial, such as the mayor's attempted bribery, even though the person offered the bribe did not accept it.

Ki Agus Ahmad from the Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation cited other irregularities in the Bandung court's ruling. He said most of the witnesses presented during the trial sessions were not appropriate as they did not understand the case. (rpt)