Apa Kabar


KPU Under Fire
June 27, 2005, 7:46 pm
Filed under: Hukum
Who would have thought that Mulyana W. Kusumah would find himself in the defendant’s chair at the Corruption Crimes Court? (more…)

0 Comments


KPU Under Fire
June 27, 2005, 12:46 pm
Filed under: Politics
Who would have thought that Mulyana W. Kusumah would find himself in the defendant’s chair at the Corruption Crimes Court?
LOCATED in Kuningan, South Jakarta, the courthouse was packed with visitors. At the outset of the court session, prosecutors Suwarji, Chatarina Muliana and Muhibuddin gave a chronology of the events surrounding the misappropriation of ballot boxes during the 2004 General Elections.
The prosecution started with Mulyana’s meeting with KPU Deputy Secretary-General, Sussondko Suhardjo, who endorsed the contract for the provision of ballot boxes, in January 2005. At the time, Mulyana was acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee for the Supply of Election Ballot Boxes for 2004.
According to the prosecution, this meeting was held to discuss the results of investigation reports issued by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) Investigation Inspecting Sub-team, indicating corruption, collusion and nepotism during the provision of ballot boxes. The prosecution then discussed Mulyana’s meeting with the secretary of the Committee for the Supply of Ballot Boxes, Richard Manusun Purba, and Khairiansyah Salman of the BPK on February 3, 2005 at the General Elections Commission (KPU) offices.
During that meeting, Kusumah allegedly promised to comply with a request from the Inspecting Sub-team to hand over documents linked to the box provision process. Kusumah, Purba and other committee members then met with the BPK Sub-team members 13 days later. During that second meeting, Kusumah reportedly promised to submit a written explanation to a number of questions from the Sub-team concerning technical qualifications and evaluations.
The prosecution then examined a following meeting held between Salman, Mulyana, Mubari and Sussongko Suhardjo at the Borobudur Hotel on March 10. During this meeting, Mubari allegedly asked Salman to help destroy investigation report findings of misappropriation during the ballot box supply process. According to the prosecution, Mubari promised to pay Salman between Rp200-300 million to destroy the findings. “This meeting was already under KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission) supervision,” said Prosecutor Suwarji.
According to the prosecution, Mulyana sent Salman an SMS message on March 31, informing him that the money would be transferred in two shipments because he only had half of the money at the time. Salman forwarded this message to his boss at the BPK, Hasan Basri. Salman replied to the message, agreeing to meet with Mulyana at the Ibis Hotel in Slipi, Jakarta at 7:30pm on April 3.
Kusumah arrived at this meeting 10 minutes early and handed over a stack of envelopes containing Rp150 million. The whole transaction was monitored by the KPK. Just one day after this meeting, Mulyana reportedly informed KPU Chairman Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin and Sussongko Suhardjo that they were still Rp150 million short. Suhardjo said that he would check about this with KPU Finance Bureau chief, Hamdani Amin.
Following this, Mulyana reportedly sent an SMS message to Nazaruddin, stating: “I need the money now.” According to Prosecutor Suwarji, this SMS was forwarded to Suhardjo, who forwarded it on to Hamdani. Later that day, Hamdani issued four Bank Mandiri travelers checks for Rp25 million. Mubari finally received the remaining Rp50 million on April 6.
Following this, Mulyana reportedly agreed to meet with Salman at the Ibis Hotel in Jakarta. Mulyana turned up with the remaining Rp150 million. During this meeting, Salman reportedly told Mulyana that this was bribery, to which Mulyana nodded and replied: “Yes, this is indeed bribery.” Both parties entered the hotel room and completed the transaction.
Mulyana has been indicted on corruption charges under Article 5 of Law No. 20/2001 on the Elimination of Crimes of Corruption. This provision carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and an additional fine of Rp250 million. However, Mulyana’s attorney, Firman Wijaya, claims that the prosecution’s indictment is vague. Wijaya also questioned the prosecution’s application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code. “Did he give the money and accept it, or did he merely assist?” Wijaya questioned.
Wijaya argues that if Mulyana is charged with making a bribe, then someone else must be charged with receiving the bribe. “According to the anti-corruption laws, both sides should be sanctioned.”
Separately, Mulyana himself refused to comment on the trial. When asked about the SMS messages sent to Nazaruddin, which indicate that Mulyana was involved in the scandal, Mulyana said: “Just wait for my legal defense,” he said.
Abdul Manan, Arief Kuswardono, Yuswardi, Jojo Rahardjo
TEMPO, JUNE 27, 2005-042/P. 48 Heading Law
0 Comments


An Excessive Sentence?
June 13, 2005, 10:42 pm
Filed under: Law
The public prosecutor in Bali filed an appeal on the 20-year prison sentence for Corby, considering it too light. Why are the airport police reluctant to do a fingerprinting test? (more…)

0 Comments


An Excessive Sentence?
June 13, 2005, 3:42 pm
Filed under: Politics
The public prosecutor in Bali filed an appeal on the 20-year prison sentence for Corby, considering it too light. Why are the airport police reluctant to do a fingerprinting test?

MERCEDES Corby cried and shouted, “Schapelle is innocent. This verdict is unjust,” she shrieked at the judge in Bali, sentencing Schapelle Leigh Corby to 20 years in prison. The 30-year-old woman sobbed loudly, disappointed over the court’s decision, and a fine of Rp100 million against her younger sister, Schapelle.

Corby, 27, a university student from Brisbane, Australia, was tried for possession of 4.2 kilograms of marijuana upon arriving at the Bali’s Ngurah Rai Airport on October 8, 2004. Airport authorities discovered the drug in two plastic containers in her bag, along with a pair of scuba flippers and a surfboard.

Corby was charged under Law No. 2/1977 on Narcotics. She was found guilty of transporting Class I narcotics into Indonesian territory. This type of violation is punishable by life or 20 years imprisonment plus a maximum fine of Rp1 billion. The Denpasar Public Prosecutor sought a life imprisonment and a fine of Rp100 million for Corby.

Corby denied that the marijuana belonged to her. In her defense on April 28, she said that she was the victim of an Australian narcotics syndicate which was taking advantage of her country’s weak airport security system. “My only mistake was not putting a lock on my luggage,” she said.

Corby’s defense team strongly objected to the charges made by the public prosecutor. In a 79-page defense entitled “Is There Any Justice for the Accused in the Beloved Country?” they stated that the demand for life imprisonment for Corby was inappropriate and set a poor example. “It is better to free 1,000 who are guilty than to punish one innocent person,” said Lili Sri Rahayu Lubis, a member of Corby’s defense team.

This team also questioned the reluctance of airport authorities, the customs people and the police as well as the public prosecutors office, to conduct a fingerprinting test on the marijuana evidence. The police feel that this kind of testing was unproductive. “Narcotics criminals use many means to remain untraceable, and one of them is by not touching the goods before they reach the recipient,” said Sr. Police Commissioner Reniban A.S., spokesperson for the Bali Regional Police Department. For this reason, said Reniban, no fingerprints belonging to the perpetrators were going to be found on packs of narcotics.

People have reacted differently to Corby’s prison sentence. Some Australians feel that the excessive prison sentence given by the Indonesian court was unjust. Conversely, the public prosecutor feels that Corby’s sentence was too lenient. “It should have been life in prison,” said Indonesian Attorney General Abdul Rahman Saleh. Public prosecutor I.B. Wismantanu has appealed the decision of “just” a 20-year sentence.

M. Taufiq, Coordinator of the Surakarta Anti-Narcotics Movement, commented that since the year 2000, of the 32 drug dealers from overseas who were tried in Indonesian courts, only one has been sentenced to life in prison. “The others were given death sentences,” he said. One of them is Rodrigues Gularte, a Brazilian arrested at Soekarno-Hatta Airport on July 31, 2004 for possession of 300 grams of cocaine. On February 7, the Tangerang District Court sentenced Gularte to death. “And his case was not as serious as Corby’s,” said Taufik.

Australia herself has also meted out serious punishments for drug runners and dealers. In 1992, for instance, a Japanese citizen, Chika Honda, was arrested at Melbourne Airport for having 13 kilograms of heroin in her suitcase. Although Honda swore that it did not belong to her, the Australian court showed no mercy. This 30-year-old woman was sentenced to remain in an Australian prison for 10 and a half years.

Abdul Manan, Rofiqi Hasan (Denpasar), Anas Syahirul (Solo)

TEMPO, JUNE 13, 2005-040/P. 43 Heading Cover Story

0 Comments