Bahlil threatens legal action over Prabowo wiretap claim
AMBON, The Kabar News—Golkar Party chairman Bahlil Lahadalia has denied an allegation that he met senior police officers shortly before authorities detained them in connection with the illegal...
AMBON, The Kabar News—Golkar Party chairman Bahlil Lahadalia has denied an allegation that he met senior police officers shortly before authorities detained them in connection with the illegal wiretapping investigation involving President Prabowo Subianto.
Bahlil, who also serves as energy and mineral resources minister, gave those circulating the accusation 72 hours to clarify it and provide evidence. He said he would otherwise issue formal legal notices and consider further action.
He addressed the allegation while inaugurating Golkar’s Maluku provincial executive board on Saturday, Nov. 7.
“Suddenly, a fabricated story appeared from I do not know where. It claimed that a party chairman met the generals three hours before authorities arrested them,” Bahlil said.
Bahlil said he initially paid little attention because the claim did not identify a party chairman. He became concerned after social media discussions began pointing to him.
Read also: Golkar dismisses Bahlil wiretap rumor as baseless
“I initially did not pay much attention because there are many party chairmen. But when I woke up on the plane this morning, I saw that people had begun accusing me. I asked myself what this was supposed to mean,” he said.
Bahlil challenged those making the allegation to substantiate it. He referred to a senior figure who discussed the claim on a podcast but did not identify that person by name.
“If the allegation refers to me, prove it. Otherwise, I will issue a legal notice and pursue legal action because this is dangerous,” Bahlil said.
He said he would give the parties concerned three periods of 24 hours—effectively 72 hours—to respond.
“After I return, I will send legal notices to those people. I will give them three times 24 hours. If they do not respond, the United States is a country governed by law, and I will take legal action,” he said.
Bahlil also asked the National Police (Polri) to investigate whether the alleged meeting occurred. He argued that authorities should disclose any supporting evidence instead of allowing an unverified accusation to spread.
Read also: Prabowo removes Listyo Sigit amid wiretapping probe
“If there was a meeting, disclose it. I was not there,” he said.
The Golkar chairman further claimed that he was among the targets of the surveillance operation. Authorities have publicly said that the alleged targets included the president, government officials and political figures. However, investigators have not released a complete list of intercepted individuals or publicly confirmed Bahlil’s claim.
The allegation developed after intelligence analyst Sri Radjasa Chandra said in an online interview that a chairman of a major parliamentary party may have known about or participated in the operation. He did not publicly name Bahlil or present independently verifiable evidence linking him to the alleged meeting.
Golkar Secretary-General Muhammad Sarmuji had already dismissed the claim on Friday.
“Anything that cannot be confirmed should simply be ignored,” Sarmuji said at Golkar’s headquarters in West Jakarta.
Read also: Listyo Sigit named suspect in illegal tapping case
Police have publicly named four suspects in the underlying investigation, identified by the initials LSP, AS, EH and SU. Investigators allege that the suspects authorized surveillance without valid law-enforcement requests and later deleted interception records. The suspected activity reportedly ran from 2025 to 2026.
Police said SU approved interception requests and the deletion of surveillance files. The authorities have not detained him because he is receiving treatment after a stroke.
Investigators have not named Bahlil as a suspect or publicly presented evidence connecting him to the alleged operation. His threatened legal action adds a new dispute over accountability for claims circulating around the investigation, but it does not determine whether the accusation is true or false. That question requires verifiable evidence and formal investigative findings.

No Comment! Be the first one.