John Zachary – A directive issued by Indonesia's Attorney General's Office instructing prosecutors nationwide to cease the collection of data and information related to the government's Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) programme has prompted public criticism and debate over transparency and accountability in the implementation of one of the country's largest social welfare initiatives.
The controversy intensified after civil society groups under the banner of MBG Watch called for a demonstration in Jakarta on Wednesday, urging authorities to continue examining public concerns surrounding the programme rather than suspend information gathering activities.
According to an official letter dated 10 July 2026 (No. B-3256/F.2/Fd.2/07/2026), the Attorney General's Office instructed all Provincial High Prosecutors' Offices across Indonesia to cease all activities involving the collection of data and information concerning the MBG programme within their respective jurisdictions.
The directive follows an earlier instruction issued in June that tasked prosecutors with inventorying and reporting implementation issues in the Free Nutritious Meals programme administered by the National Nutrition Agency (Badan Gizi Nasional, BGN). The latest letter states that the suspension follows internal consideration of media reports submitted by the Central Java High Prosecutor's Office concerning data collection activities related to Nutrition Service Fulfilment Units (Satuan Pemenuhan Pelayanan Gizi or SPPG) in Central Java.
The letter does not provide a detailed explanation for the decision to halt the nationwide information gathering exercise. As a result, the directive has prompted questions from members of the public and civil society organisations seeking greater clarity regarding the government's oversight of the programme.
In response, MBG Watch issued a public call for action under the slogan 'Bongkar Korupsi MBG' ('Expose Alleged Corruption in MBG'), inviting citizens to gather and lend their voices to a call for more transparency.
According to the organisers, the demonstration seeks to:
- call for the termination of the MBG programme and the dissolution of the National Nutrition Agency (BGN) and the Nutrition Service Fulfilment Units (SPPG);
- urge authorities to fully investigate allegations of corruption related to the programme;
- and advocate for the reallocation of MBG funding to education, healthcare, and social protection programmes for lower-income communities.
The protest reflects broader public concerns regarding governance, oversight, and accountability in the implementation of the programme. A social media post circulated alongside the protest announcement claimed that the directive reflected 'an agreement between the National Police and the Attorney General's Office,' adding that it had been 'immediately answered by an aware public.' Jakarta Daily has not independently verified that assertion, and no supporting evidence was presented in the materials reviewed.
Transparency debate
The developments have also renewed wider discussions about accountability in public administration, particularly in relation to programmes involving substantial public expenditure. The issue echoes themes raised by Dharma Pongrekun during his recent Constitutional Court proceedings, where he argued that government institutions entrusted with public funds should be subject to robust standards of transparency, accountability, and public oversight. Pongrekun maintained that state programmes should remain open to scrutiny and independent oversight in order to strengthen public confidence and uphold constitutional principles of good governance. While those Constitutional Court proceedings concerned broader constitutional questions and were not directed specifically at the Attorney General's recent directive or the MBG programme, the issues of institutional oversight, transparency, and accountability have become central to the current public debate.
Calls for clarification
The Attorney General's Office has not publicly explained whether the suspension of data collection is intended as an administrative measure, a procedural adjustment, or the conclusion of a preliminary review. Likewise, the directive does not state whether any existing legal processes or investigations, if any, are affected.
The absence of a more detailed public explanation has prompted civil society organisations and members of the public to call for greater clarity regarding the rationale behind the directive and the government's plans for continued oversight of the programme.
As demonstrators gather in Jakarta, the discussion surrounding the MBG programme has broadened beyond implementation issues to encompass wider questions about institutional transparency, prosecutorial independence, and public accountability.
Public attention is now focused on whether the Attorney General's Office or other relevant government agencies will provide further clarification regarding the directive. Their response may influence public confidence in the governance of one of Indonesia's largest social programmes and the continuing national conversation on transparency and accountability in public administration.