A Legal Avenue Remains

KOMPAS/DANU KUSWORO

Sjamsul Nursalim (center).

The termination of an investigation in a corruption case in which Sjamsul Nursalim was named a suspect has again sparked a debate about the actual purpose of the revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law.

Also read: KPK Presses Ahead with BLBI Case

There was suspicion from the very beginning that the revision of Law No.30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was aimed at weakening the KPK. The KPK Law revision was designed by a number of politicians and supported by the government of President Joko Widodo. The President did not sign the KPK Law revision. Pursuant to the Constitution, even if the President does not put a signature on a bill, it becomes effective 30 days after being approved by the House of Representatives and the government. The same is true of the revision of the KPK Law, which came into effect on 17 October 2019.

The revised KPK Law gives the KPK the authority to terminate the investigation of cases the settlement of which is unclear within a period of two years. It’s not quite apparent how the frame of thought of lawmakers has restricted the time limit to two years. The fact is that, in the case of Pelindo II, RJ Lino, who was declared a suspect at the end of 2015, was only detained on 26 March 2021.

Also read: Score in Corruption Index Falls, Alarm bells ring for Corruption Eradication

The authority to terminate investigations has now been used by the KPK in the case of Sjamsul Nursalim. As stated by KPK Deputy Chairman Alexander Marwata, the termination of the investigation was meant to ensure legal certainty. The decision was welcomed by Sjamsul’s attorney, who had said earlier that the case had been settled after Sjamsul had signed an accord on the fulfillment of obligations of shareholders in the form of the Master Settlement Acquisition Agreement (MSAA) on 25 May 1999. According to Sjamsul’s attorney, the government had promised and guaranteed immunity not to prosecute Sjamsul in whatever form (Kompas, 20 June 2019).

KOMPAS/AGUS SUSANTO

Deputy Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Alexander Marwata in a press statement at the KPK Building, Jakarta, Friday (8/1/2021).

Here lies the problem. The Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support (BLBI) case is a long-standing one. Its legal construction is complex. The intricacy of Sjamsul’s case is also related to the case of the former head of the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), Syafruddin Temenggung, who was acquitted by the Supreme Court. Three justices had dissenting views. Justice Salman Luthan supported the verdict of the Jakarta High Court sentencing Syafruddin to 13 years in prison. However, Syamsul Rakan Chaniago said the action of Syafruddin belonged to the civil domain. Mohammad Askin opined that this case was subject to the administrative law. The KPK indicated that the state sustained total losses of Rp4.58 trillion.

Also read: Maintaining Anticorruption Energy

The complex BLBI case, which has gone through various legal regimes, still leaves the public with a feeling that justice has not been served. The sense of injustice is to be compared with today’s innermost sentiments. The publication of the investigation termination warrant (SP3) has given rise to speculation about another consideration besides the legal one. It seems too soon for the KPK to “give up” by discontinuing its investigation.

The step taken by anticorruption activists to contest the SP3 decision is a legal move. Let judges test the legal argument of the KPK about its SP3. Let the KPK account for the evidence or background giving the reason for its SP3 publication. A debate in court constitutes the most dignified legal argumentation. Legal certainty and legal justice sometimes are indeed at variance.

This article was translated by Aris Prawira.