Jakarta – Once again, the Attorney General's Office (AGO) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) are vying to handle the same legal case. Without any coordination, both institutions are investigating alleged corruption involving Pertamina Energy Trading Limited (Petral) with the same object and over almost the same timeframe. This once again shows the legal populism often seen recently.
The KPK has been investigating alleged corruption at Petral from 2008 to 2015 since November 2024. They are investigating the allegation of US$2.9 million bribes paid annually to Pertamina Refinery Director Chrisna Damayanto by three companies, including Gold Manor, an old player in Pertamina's supplier network. This company is known for using a hidden commission scheme through intermediaries that has provided an opportunity for price inflation for many years.
KPK investigators discovered that Chrisna was close to Mohammad Riza Chalid, a central figure in oil and natural gas trading whose name has repeatedly appeared in audit and investigation reports. Both had positions at Pertamina subsidiaries in Singapore relating to the procurement of catalysts. At the end of October 2025, the AGO announced its own investigation into the Petral case, but over the 2009 to 2015 time period, overlapping with the KPK investigation. The substance of both cases is exactly the same.
This duplication happened previously when the AGO moved in on a KPK investigation of another oil and gas corruption case. However, the KPK investigation of Peral started earlier, in October 2023. Legal ethics dictates that the body that begins an investigation should have priority.
The Attorney General's Office began its investigation without any coordination. And the AGO investigation seems odd because the same institution and people are being probed. And the time frames are almost the same. The KPK and the AGO are acting independently as if they are not state institutions under the same boss, namely President Prabowo Subianto.
Therefore, there is no doubt that they are competing to show themselves as big-time corruption hunters. Petral is a good arena to demonstrate this: it is a major case, there is an extensive network and the people involved have economic and political influence. When two institutions vie for a case, they see an opportunity to present themselves as winners without having to show a final result.
On the other hand, this pattern also opens up the possibility of many actors holding each other hostage. The rent-seeking network that surrounds Petral has existed for decades. The rivalry over the investigation provides an opportunity to decide who will be investigated and who will remain safe. When the AGO and the KPK compete, the resulting contest provides an opportunity for the entry of new players to control the direction of the investigation.
If the authorities are serious about enforcing the law, there is no need for them to show off by vying to investigate cases. The Petral corruption case needs people with the courage to expose the networks, not institutional maneuvering just to show off authority.
If law enforcement agencies continue to compete like this, it is difficult to hope for a comprehensive uncovering of crimes. Institutional squabbles provide an opportunity for the oil and gas rent seekers, who have long been detrimental to the public, to remain untouched.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2066623/vying-for-the-petral-cas