Nivell Rayda – The country's most prominent antigraft watchdog warned on Wednesday that there were at least two provisions in the latest draft of the Anti-Corruption Court bill that could hamper the government's campaign against graft.

Speaking at a discussion held by the Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK), Febry Diyansyah, head of legal and judicial affairs at Indonesia Corruption Watch, said that the latest draft suggested that a permanent Anti-Corruption Court would be established at the district level.

"There would be at least 400 such courts across the country, which would require huge numbers of judges with the capacity to hear corruption cases and completely understand the law on corruption," he said.

ICW also commented on a move by the Supreme Court to train at least 2,000 new judges in anticipation of the new courts, which Febry said was a mere formality.

"The top court did not even bother to check the integrity of each judge – many of them had already controversially acquitted several graft defendants in the past," he said.

"The Supreme Court only conducted the training for two weeks. How can they expect to produce quality judges?"

The ICW also said there should only be six courts hearing corruption cases from several provinces each, to maintain the integrity of anticorruption efforts.

Hailed as a key weapon in the fight against corruption, the current court in Jakarta, which has a 100 percent conviction rate, has sent many high-ranking officials to jail for graft.

In 2006, the constitutional court ruled that the current Anti-Corruption Court lacked a solid legal basis and ordered a new law to be drawn up before Dec. 19 of this year.

Febry also said that another problem that could reduce the court's effectiveness was the number of ad-hoc judges on single panels. The current court has at least three ad-hoc judges, but the latest version of the bill says there should only be two ad-hoc judges per five-member panel.

"Permanent judges are part of an already corrupt judicial system," Febry said. "It is unlikely they will be as independent in their decision as ad-hoc judges, despite claims that they are."

The ICW added that corruption cases heard by regular courts, which follow the rule of two ad-hoc judges per five-member panel, had been less successful in putting corrupt officials behind bars. The ICW said that records showed that more than 50 percent of these cases resulted in acquittals.