Jakarta – There are signs that relations between the Police and the Attorney General's Office (AGO) are not good. Although they appear to agree in public, there is an underlying conflict between them.
At the end of August 2025, reports emerged that the police wanted to search the home of Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes Febrie Adriansyah in Jakarta. The house was immediately placed under heavy guard by armed Indonesian military (TNI) personnel. The plan for the search was foiled, but the public was already shocked.
Previously, police had arrested businessman Yanto Hongkiriwang alias Ferry Boboho – known to be close to Febrie – after he assaulted personnel of the special detachment 88 police anti-terror unit who were following him. This incident also implicated the TNI strategic intelligence agency, which intervened after being contacted by Ferry.
It is strongly suspected that all of this was related to the mega corruption case over the tin management in Bangka Belitung, currently being investigated by the AGO. This case, involving hundreds of trillions of rupiah, has embroiled several major tycoons known to be close to the police.
This conflict between law enforcement agencies is clearly more than a difference of opinion about technical issues related to the handling of cases. It is a power struggle behind cases rife with political and financial interests. Stalking, arrest and threats of searches involving the police, prosecutors and even the military show the grim face of law enforcement in this nation.
We still remember the "gecko versus crocodile" dispute between the police and the Corruption Eradication Commission a decade ago. Now tensions have arisen again, this time between the police and prosecutors, and even with the aroma of military involvement. The difference is that this dispute is quieter, but no less dangerous. Instead of working together, legal institutions are busy spying on each other and limiting each other's freedom of movement.
The root of the problem is clear: the law has long since become a commodity. Institutions compete to handle cases not in the interest of justice, but in order to obtain political and economic access. Links between law enforcement officers and tycoons and politicians establish patron-client networks for mutual protection. In these networks, the law is treated as a traded good. Whoever can pay for protection is safe.
This phenomenon resembles the way authorities work in nations controlled by a "mafia." The authorities compete not to uphold the rules, but to provide backing and support for individuals facing problems. A justice black market emerges: corruptors seek protection, and law enforcers vie to offer services while the people who should be protected become the victims. This is the real face of a nation that has become captive to narrow interests, while the function of law enforcement is paralyzed.
The consequence of this is that public trust in the law is eroded. The handling of cases becomes increasingly uncertain and even comes to resemble an arena for rent seeking between the elites of the institutions. And democracy faces the loss of one of its supports, because the law, which should become the foundation of a democracy, is transformed into a venue for bargaining of power.
The state must not allow law enforcement to turn into a market where officials sell protection services. As long as it is controlled by a patronage network and a "mafia," the law will only side with those able to pay. Meanwhile, the majority will lose their protection.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2043165/the-criminal-case-black-marke