The Jakarta Corruption Court sentenced prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari to 10 years in prison on Monday. The sentence was heavier than what the prosecutor had demanded.
By
KOMPAS EDITOR
·3 minutes read
The Jakarta Corruption Court sentenced prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari to 10 years in prison on Monday. The sentence was heavier than what the prosecutor had demanded.
The panel of judges chaired by Ignatius Eko Puwanto seems to have captured the public\'s sense of justice after the prosecutor only demanded a four-year sentence for prosecutor Pinangki. The relatively low sentence demanded by the prosecutor triggered the launch of an online petition through the change.org website, which urged the panel of judges to sentence Pinangki to up to 20 years in prison. The ultra petita verdict (exceeding the prosecutor\'s demands) shows an early indication that there are problems in the process of investigation and prosecution at the Attorney General’s Office.
Even though the sentence was much heavier, the court publicly acknowledged that there was another actor called the "Kingmaker" who could not be revealed in an open trial.
The panel of judges failed to extract further information from prosecutor Pinangki, lawyer Anita Kolopaking or witness Rahmad. They clammed up. However, the court believed that prosecutor Pinangki was used to arrange cases.
The court publicly acknowledged that there was another actor called the "Kingmaker" who could not be revealed in an open trial.
Code names such as "Kingmaker", "Bapakku" (my boss), or "Bapakmu" (your boss) are commonly used in conspiracies for corruption. In the past, there were also other code names, such as "Washington Apple", "Malang Apple", "Phone Credit", "Madam", "Foreign Fish Package" but the identities behind these pseudonyms were all revealed.
Investigators, whether from the National Police, the prosecutor’ office, or the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), had no difficulties breaking the codes. Their investigative abilities and techniques are believed to be able to reveal it. The problem is whether there is a sincere desire to reveal the play in Joko Tjandra’s case. There must be no intention to protect it. Joko Tjandra\'s case is a high-profile one that may involve a number of elites in law enforcement.
From the information given by a limited group of people who carry out non-judicial investigations, the public can already guess who the "Kingmaker" is. Anti-corruption activist Boyamin Saimans, in Kompas on Feb. 10, said the
"Kingmaker" was a high-level official to whom Pinangki had to report. Such an indication is actually quite clear.
The public certainly hopes that the conspiracy in Joko Tjandra’s case can be completely exposed, including its mastermind. Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Mahfud MD can ask investigators from the police or KPK to work further to find out who the "Kingmaker" is. During his tenure as the chairman of the Constitutional Court, Mahfud MD once played a recording of the KPK\'s tapping in the court’s office. From the recording, it was found that there was an attempt to criminalize the KPK’s leaders. What is needed is a commitment to the rule of law and a clean judiciary, as well political courage.
"Kingmaker" was a high-level official to whom Pinangki had to report. Such an indication is actually quite clear.
Another path that can be taken is to provide space for Joko Tjandra, Anita Kolopaking or Napoleon Bonaparte to open up so that they do not have to be victims alone. With the judge\'s conviction, the public believes there is a mastermind behind the operation to acquit Joko Tjandra. This needs to be resolved so that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system will not be impaired.
This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi.