The Sambo Case: Manipulation and Legal Construction
Why were the perpetrators capable of carrying out a structured and systematic manipulation?
It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered. Aristotle
The case of the death of Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat or Brigadier J has received very extensive coverage and drawn a great deal of public attention. The initial information presented by the police has raised public suspicion and questions.
The narration made and conveyed to the public about the incident is hard for common sense to accept so there is suspicion of a manipulation of actual facts.
The police have lately corrected the previous information and offered a different version of the case of Brigadier J’s death. The death was allegedly due to a murder that involved a high-ranking police officer, Inspector General Ferdy Sambo.
The alleged murder case has attracted public attention and been massively covered by printed, electronic and social media. This case has been especially spotlighted and become topical news because of various factors, such as the persons involved, the place of the incident, how it occurred, why it happened, how the incident took shape, its background, how the police institution responded and what implications it has for the police institution with its authority to handle this incident according to the existing legal system.
Besides the police, other institutions are also involved in different ways, positions and portions: the President; the Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Ministry; the House of Representatives; the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM); the National Commission on Violence against Women; the Witness and Victim Protection Institute (LPSK); the National Police Commission; nongovernmental organizations; and certainly, the mass media.
Also read:
> Maintaining National Police’s Credibility and Accountability
The wide media coverage of the case seems to have sparked the appearance of various opinions and perceptions from different circles with diverse backgrounds: lawyers, psychologists, former law-enforcement officials, legal counselors as well as laymen have expressed their views and perceptions on various occasions and in various media.
Different media are intensively and continuously covering the case and presenting it to the public. Such massive reporting of a criminal case, especially an alleged murder, has happened before.
For instance, the case involving Jessica Kumala Wongso also received mass coverage. The trial of the case of the alleged killing of Mirna by alleged means of cyanide coffee also attracted public attention. The hearing of this case was even broadcast live by television stations.
Extensive media reporting and coverage of a legal case is not unique to Indonesia, but happens in other countries as well. In the United States, for example, there was a very well-known case in which OJ Simpson, who was a former American football player and Hollywood star, stood trial on charges of having killed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman in 1994.
The trial of OJ Simpson was in the US public spotlight and became the main focus of television, radio and newspaper coverage in that country.
The case of the death of Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat or Brigadier J has received very extensive coverage and drawn a great deal of public attention.
The criminal case was widely highlighted by the US mass media and public because the suspect was a very talented former black athlete and a Hollywood actor. After going through protracted court proceedings, OJ Simpson was found not guilty and released on 3 October 1995.
In South Africa there was a legal case implicating Oscar Pistorius, a paralympic athlete who received broad coverage and global attention. Oscar was accused of involvement in the murder case of his lover, Reeva Steenkamp, a model. At first, Oscar Pistorius was declared innocent. However, in the following decision he was found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison; ultimately, the Supreme Court increased his punishment to 15 years.
The trial of this case not only drew public interest in South Africa but also in countries around Africa and in the British Commonwealth because the defendant was a favorite paralympic athlete while the murder victim was a model.
Alibi and manipulation
The other intriguing factor in the case of Ferdy Sambo is the alleged manipulation involved in inventing an alibi and narrative, in sum the attempt at the obstruction of justice. Based on a report released by Komnas HAM (1/9/2022), the manipulation of actual facts and obstruction of justice was apparent in various deeds.
The manipulation of facts and obstruction of justice were done in different ways and practically in a structured and systematic fashion, for example by inventing a scenario and consolidating witnesses, creating uniform testimonies regarding the background of the incident, the crime scene and the alibi.
Also read:
In addition, there was the erasure or removal of something unfavorable; the attempt to consolidate the crime scene (TKP); the change of the TKP location; the destruction, taking away and/or removal and replacement of pieces of evidence at the TKP and around the TKP; the unprocedural treatment of the TKP; allowing unauthorized parties to enter the TKP; making a narration to obscure facts; manipulating reports; making videos that were suited to the scenario; using the official position’s influence; and ordering to clear the TKP.
Why were the perpetrators capable of carrying out a structured and systematic manipulation? The structured and systematic manipulation and obstruction of justice could be done because the perpetrators had the access and power in managing this case. Without the access and power at their disposal, there was little chance of realizing the structured and systematic manipulation and obstruction of justice.
End of debates
Eventually, this criminal case will be taken to court and submitted to the judge to obtain a legal decision. All the debates will later end in the judicial institution. The judge trying this case will give the final word as to the diverse interpretations of the incident that have captured public attention.
In this context, the judge in charge of deciding the case has to face the parties involved in the trial and the proof process. Presented before the judge are the legal construction, evidence and arguments of investigators and public prosecutors vis-à-vis the legal construction, evidence and arguments of defendants and their attorneys. Outside the trial, there are the opinions and perceptions of other parties.
It should not happen that the entire legal process just confirms the statement of Steven Magee: “Corrupt governments run corrupt courts that protect corrupt cops.”
The judge will make a legal construction and decide what law should apply and how on the basis of his authority and capacity. The judge will verify all the facts and arguments presented to him in the trial and test their authenticity. What is constructed and decided by the judge may not be the same as what has so far been discussed, known and presented in public discourses and by the media. As the saying goes, “Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion.”
The judicial institution is currently being intensely observed by the public; what it decides is expected to serve as a reference regarding authentic social standards. Judges are expected to deliver verdicts that are capable of maintaining social order and achieving social goals as well as becoming future normative references.
The judge trying this case should be able to test all the facts and arguments and apply the law by clearly siding with truth, justice and social advantage. It is a heavy task, but that is how the judge is obliged to provide protection for society. Therefore, they are called “Your Honor”.
It is to the judge that the final word of all legal disputes is entrusted, because we believe the “rule of law” exists in this country. The judge is expected to be capable of testing and evaluating all facts and deciding with wisdom, with clear reason and conscience. It should not happen that the entire legal process just confirms the statement of Steven Magee: “Corrupt governments run corrupt courts that protect corrupt cops.”
Sigit Riyanto, Emeritus Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University.
This article was translated by Aris Prawira.
