The prosecutor’s office has taken swift action in trying one of its own, prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari, who appeared at her first hearing on Wednesday (23/9/2020) at the Jakarta Corruption Court.
By
KOMPAS EDITOR
·3 minutes read
The prosecutor’s office has taken swift action in trying one of its own, prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari, who appeared at her first hearing on Wednesday (23/9/2020) at the Jakarta Corruption Court.
The prosecutor’s office has processed her case faster than the police have with other suspects, and their quick action is highly appreciated. Meanwhile, the police have shown no progress on their end. The public hopes that the quick processing of Pinangki’s case is intended to reveal all those who are involved in the case, and that it is not driven by ulterior motives like preventing the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) from investigating the case.
Attorney General S.T. Burhanuddin and former Supreme Court chief justice Hatta Ali (2012-2020) were also mentioned in the indictment against Pinangki. The two were mentioned in connection with an action plan intended to help Joko S. Tjandra evade justice by asking the court to publish a legal opinion to the tune of US$100 million. In response, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) said that the defendant had used Burhanuddin’s name without consent in securing the deal. Likewise, Hatta Ali said that Pinangki had used his name as a "selling point". Let he court prove it.
The problem is whether the two investigations will result in a complete and fair legal process or a legal construction to protect the elite corps instead.
The separate investigations by the National Police and the AGO can cause additional complexities in the case. The Joko Tjandra case must be viewed in the larger context of an illicit "operation" to help him evade justice that involved many actors at many institutions. The problem is whether the two investigations will result in a complete and fair legal process or a legal construction to protect the elite corps instead.
Was the removal of Joko Tjandra’s name from the Interpol Red Notice an isolated incident, unrelated to the issuance of a travel permit for Joko (by the National Police)? Was Pinangki the sole accomplice at the prosecutor\'s office? Or was she working with other individuals or actors in carrying out the “operation” to free Joko?
The separate investigations make it difficult to draw a complete picture of the planned operation to free Joko. The connections between Pinangki, Anita Kolopaking, Prasetijo Utomo, Andi Irfan Jaya and Joko Tjandra will be difficult to fully determine under the dual investigations. Meanwhile, the criminal justice system recognizes the judicial model of the “crown witness”.
Doesn\'t the KPK Law arm it with the mandate to focus on law enforcement officials?
We encourage the KPK to oversee this case, if it has the will to do so. If the KPK does take over the case, it could improve public trust in the legal process for this case while boosting public confidence in the KPK, now at its lowest point. The antigraft body, with its relative independence, is better equipped to build the case without being burdened by an interest in protecting the elite. Doesn\'t the KPK Law arm it with the mandate to focus on law enforcement officials?
No firm leadership exists that can decide where to direct law enforcement. Why? Conflict of interest. In fact, the Joko Tjandra case is an opportunity to clean up the “mafia” that is deeply rooted in the judiciary. Under the current investigative model, only the greedy and unlucky are caught. We encourage Pinangki, Anita and Prasetijo Utomo to cooperate with the court as justice collaborators. This way, they can help law enforcement uncover the practices of the judicial mafia.