Jakarta – The Attorney General's Office (AGO) should be more cautious in its handling of the case relating to alleged corruption over the purchase of Chromebook laptops at the Ministry of Education and Culture from 2019 to 2022. It must not ignore the integrity of the investigation process and the protection of citizens from arbitrary action by law enforcement officers.

The AGO has named four suspects. Two are people close to Nadiem Anwar Makarim – the former Minister of Education and Culture, also well-known as the founder of Gojek. The two other suspects are ministry officials. The AGO claims that the losses to the state from this project amounted to Rp1.9 trillion.

There have been questions about the investigation from the outset. The identities of the suspects were revealed before they were officially named, including insinuations pointing directly at Nadiem. And Nadiem's initials were openly mentioned to journalists even though he was not yet a suspect.

This potentially violates the presumption of innocence, a basic principle in the criminal law system that states a person must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise through a fair and open court process. Disclosing names or providing strong hints to the public without sufficient evidence will only lead to opinion, not upholding justice.

The problem is that the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) does not regulate detailed provisions on protecting the rights of witnesses or individuals not yet named as suspects. This is different from the legal system in the United States, which has the Miranda Warning, fundamental rights that are explained to a person when they are detained or questioned, including the right to remain silent and to the presence of an attorney.

The revised KUHAP draft currently being discussed by Commission III at the House of Representatives, which is responsible for legal matters, emphasizes an expansion of the powers of the law enforcement apparatus, rather than strengthening the protection for citizens facing legal problems. This is the wrong focus.

We must also be wary of the tendency for politically biased investigations, especially since the articles used by the prosecutors in this case are Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Law. These articles are known as "catch-all articles" because they can be arbitrarily interpreted by law enforcers.

The case of Thomas Trikasih Lembong, or Tom Lembong, the former Minister of Trade who was embroiled in corruption related to sugar imports, is one reflection of this. Although the court did not prove that Tom personally benefited or had criminal intent to carry out corrupt acts, the adviser to the Anies Baswedan campaign in the 2024 presidential election was still found guilty and sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment.

It is important to emphasize that criticism of the way this case is being handled should not be taken to mean defending Nadiem Makarim or anybody else involved. This magazine has learned that Nadiem met with representatives of Google – the owner of the Chrome operating system – before the project began. And there are investment links between Google and Gojek, the company he founded. But allegations like this must be proved in court, not in public through insinuations or unilateral leaks by officials.

Transparency and accountability of law enforcement cannot be achieved by trying to stir up opinions. The law must be upheld in a way that is professional, balanced and free from political pressure.

– Read the Complete Story in Tempo English Magazine

Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2034107/leaks-from-the-chromebooks-corruption-investigatio