Thekabarnews.com—Many netizens have requested that I discuss Nadiem Makarim’s legal case. Yes, I am working on resolving the issues related to MPR’s 4 pillars and the LCC. I’ll give a legal perspective in the style of the Koptagul Party. Any nonsense subsequently requires permission from the legal experts of this country. The text is a bit long; it’s enjoyable to read with a cup of sugarless coffee (Koptagul), dude!

Indonesia is a special country. School laptops are just electrical equipment in other countries. Here laptops can be mythical animals called “evidence.” When the Rp9.3 trillion budget starts to kick in, the whole country is suddenly a mix of forensic auditors, criminal law academics, geopolitical analysts, and conspiracy theory shamans.

Yesterday people were arguing over whether instant noodles should be boiled or soaked. Now they start talking about mens rea, genuine loss, and cross-global business conflicts of interest.

Indeed, Nadiem Makarim’s case is not about a laptop alone. This has become a gladiatorial colosseum between two major factions of the republic. The camp of “all trillion rupiah projects must have thieves” and the camp of “not all failing programs should be called corruption.” Interestingly, both sides occasionally have a valid point.

The prosecutor also demanded 18 years in prison, a punishment of Rp1 billion, and compensation of Rp5.6 trillion and said that the state suffered a loss of Rp2.18 trillion. It’s like damage in a god-tier RPG game. The regular folks, when they hear that amount, usually have only two reactions: either they gawk, or they instantly check their bank balance while laughing cruelly.

The essence of the prosecutor’s charge is straightforward yet serious. Specifically, the policy did not explicitly require Chromebooks, did not mandate Chrome Device Management, involved allegedly inflated prices, and raised accusations of policy steering through meetings, Permendikbud, and WhatsApp groups.

What a remarkable country this is. In industrialized countries, family WhatsApp groups are full of videos of dancing cats. In Indonesia, WhatsApp groups could serve as potential evidence in corruption prosecutions.

However, we should proceed methodically, adhering to the legal procedures of the constitutional coffee shop.

Indonesian corruption law, particularly Articles 2 and 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, contains a fundamental element that public emotion can never replace. There must be evidence that someone engaged in illegal conduct, self-enrichment or the enrichment of others, misused power, and caused losses for the state. Well, here is when the drama starts to get wilder than a soap opera about a cruel stepmother fighting over inheritance.

First issue: “against the law.

This term is not an uncomplicated word. Many netizens think that the policy is a violation of the law. Actually, it’s not like that. Administrative law has what is called discretion. Ministers are indeed allowed room for strategic judgments, especially in the context of a pandemic. Schools were closed, learning was messy, the 3T regions were suffering, and we were all frightened like a chicken without a GPS.

The rapid digitalization was a key focus of the Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Ministry at that time. Chromebooks were selected since these are regarded as inexpensive, light, easy to manage, and integrated. Is this option the ideal choice? Not sure. Does the automatic policy of corruption suck? That’s a different scenario altogether.

If we immediately punish every detrimental policy, Indonesian officials will become terrified of innovation. Only Indonesian officials would dare to create the safest program in the world, the National Seminar. The initiative is called “Strengthening Collaborative Harmonization Toward Adaptive Transformation Based on Local Wisdom.” And it’s speeches and photos and Risol munchies, and then it is dispersed without the chance of being arrested.

The second issue is personal enrichment.

This topic is the hottest part. There was enrichment of hundreds of billions and unjustified wealth, the prosecutor stated. The defense then launched a counterattack, similar to the ultimate ability of a character in Mobile Legends. Hotman Paris Hutapea said repeatedly that there was no money going to Nadiem.

The flow of money is very significant in corruption criminal law. Critical. Critical. This task is more crucial than a phone charger with only 1% battery left.

Corruption is not merely ‘poor policy’; it also involves understanding who benefits from it illicitly. Corruption requires a conception of who benefits illicitly. If the prosecutor can’t prove where the money went—to the defendant or his pals—the public begins to think, Is this really a corruption case or a case of choosing the wrong laptop?

At this stage there was a faction arguing, Ah, how come a project worth Rp9.3 trillion is net?

That line does sound reasonable in Indonesia, where the bolts on a bridge frequently disappear halfway through. But the logic of a coffee shop is not the logic of criminal law. If we consider all large enterprises corrupt until proven innocent, the presumption of innocence becomes nothing more than a museum display.

The third problem is conflict of interest.

This issue is causing the public to scratch their heads while browsing TikTok at midnight. Because Google has an ecosystem relationship with Gojek and Nadiem, who founded Gojek, he said together there is national suspicion.
The situation is ethically sensitive.

Conflict of interest is a fundamental problem in modern government. The whiff of a fight may send an official’s career crashing down like a Jenga tower pushed by a kindergarten kid.

But, in criminal situations, a conflict of interest does not equal corruption. The prosecutor still has to show that there is a quid pro quo and tangible reciprocity. Criminal law cannot simply say that. “The vibrations are essentially suspect.”

If vibes are used as evidence, this republic is finished. Half of the officials go to jail because netizens feel their “aura is dodgy.”

Then there were analogies with Tom Lembong. This situation is intriguing because Tom’s case served as a preview for Nadiem’s major film.

Tom was sentenced to 4.5 years in a sugar import case, but the judge said he did not enjoy the money himself. This scenario is where many legal experts begin to sigh and look at the ceiling of the courtroom.

Because if politicians face prosecution only for making bad policies, then people can no longer clearly separate poor decisions from actual corruption.

It’s a technocrat’s worst nightmare.

Dude, envision a highly skilled professional entering government with the intention of implementing significant changes. He thinks like a startup. Fast. Aggressive. Digital. Disruptive. But sometimes Indonesian bureaucracy is like an old train full of triple copies of forms and wet stamps. Startup style with colonial bureaucratic culture can be a bit like mixing espresso with Mak Leha’s herbal medication.

And then when the project runs into trouble, the state starts asking, Is the venture a failed innovation or a diabolical conspiracy? And then, when the enterprise runs into trouble, the state begins to ask itself, is the project a failed innovation or an evil conspiracy?

Honestly, sometimes in Indonesia it is difficult to tell the two apart. Our procurement system has a history of issues. From e-KTP to social assistance, the public has often heard tales of “It turns out the money is missing.”

Currently, the public instinctively reacts to the announcement of a major project by thinking, “Where’s the money?!”

In truth, the law should not run on collective trauma alone. Later, the judge will decide if the case is genuinely a criminal act of corruption or an overcriminalization of policy. The impact of the verdict will be significant.

Severe penalties for Nadiem without solid proof of wealth will lead future officials to become administrative zombies. No one dares to decide; no one dares to invent; no one dares to touch big initiatives. An audit that comes later, like a kuntilanak ghost, terrifies everyone into fearing arrest five years down the line.

But if it turns out there is actual specification manipulation, vendor indoctrination, and abuse of authority, then the public also has the right to observe impartial law enforcement. Technocrats are not a caste of gods who are above scrutiny.

Such is the paradox of modern Indonesia. We want inventive officials, but we also live in a country where bureaucracy and legislation can make innovation feel like navigating a field of anti-tank mines while holding a Chromebook.

By: Rosadi Jamani, Chairman of Satupena West Kalimantan.

……….

Do you have an opinion on the issues that are happening right now? If you would like to submit your article by email to thekabarnews@gmail.com,

Stay connected via Google News