Jakarta – For the public prosecutors, the four-month trial of Thomas Trikasih Lembong, or Tom Lembong, seems to be an irrelevance. The testimony of witnesses in the case relating to alleged corruption over sugar imports has not influenced their charges against the defendant. The prosecution of the 2015-2016 Trade Minister has been highly irregular from the start.

There is a distinct impression that the prosecutors have forced through the prosecution of Tom Lembong since he was named a suspect on October 29, 2024. The latest irregularity is apparent from the charges read on Friday, July 4, 2025. Prosecutors sought a seven-year prison term and a Rp750 million fine for Tom. The wording of the indictment is similar to the initial charge sheet read on March 6, 2025. The prosecutors have excluded all the testimony given by witnesses in 20 previous sessions.

And there are a number of facts at odds with the prosecutors' charges that have arisen during the trial. For example, prosecutors allege that when Tom, as minister, approved the imports, Indonesia had a sugar surplus. But witnesses from the Agriculture Ministry presented data showing the opposite: in the period in question, there was a deficit of around 177,000 tons. And the prosecutor's conclusion that farmers lost out as a result of the import decision contradicts the testimony of witnesses from the Trade Ministry that said exactly the opposite.

In a trial session, the prosecutors try to maintain the charges. But they should not ignore facts stated by witnesses. The testimony of witnesses and experts, as well as that of the defendant, is all valid evidence that the prosecutors should take into consideration.

This trial has shown that the decision to allow imports was not a policy that should be subject to prosecution. Policies are a consequence of a person's job, and they might well be wrong or not benefit the majority. But evaluation of a policy taken by a public official should be carried out politically. And punishment for those who make wrong policy decisions takes the form of dismissal or failure to be reelected, unless the policymaker has a personal interest, including receiving payments or gratuities. In that case, it would be appropriate to suspect that such policies were based on criminal intent, or mens rea.

But in Tom Lembong's case, there is no clear criminal intent. It is not clear how he benefited from the policy. The prosecutors should have established criminal intent leading to losses to the state. In their charges, the prosecutors even said that Tom did not receive any proceeds from corruption and therefore could not be ordered to repay losses to the state.

Tom is not the only minister who has issued sugar import policies. There is an impression of discrimination over the handling of this case. The prosecutors did not question similar policies taken by other ministers. A total of six people served as Trade Minister in the Joko Widodo administration. They all allowed sugar imports in varying amounts. Apart from Tom, there were Rachmat Gobel, Enggartiasto Lukita, Agus Suparmanto, Muhammad Lutfi, and Zulkifli Hasan.

The way this case has been managed sets a bad precedent. Officials in future might be worried about being criminalized if they issue policies. And it is not impossible that many officials will refuse to lead government projects. As a result, public services will be disrupted. The panel of judges has an opportunity to correct the irregularities in the public prosecutors' charges. Isn't there the adage in dubio pro reo? If there is doubt in the evidence, the decision must favor the defendant, meaning their acquittal.

– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine

Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2028900/the-disappointing-charges-against-tom-lembon