Thekabarnews.com—Former education minister Nadiem Makarim was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He used to have a fancy job, but now he is in jail. Interestingly, there was a dissenting opinion by one of the judges during the decision. In the Pontianak language, “beda sorang” indicates that the cofounder of ride-hailing firm Gojek should be free. It’s enjoyable to read with a cup of sugarless coffee (Koptagul), dude!

The Jakarta Corruption Court has just delivered a decision for Nadiem. Nadiem Anwar Makarim got the red card from two of the three judges. One judge literally stood up and said, “I’m sorry; my opinion is that this individual should be released.”

That was the legal drama that broke out on June 30, 2026. The former education minister, once a paragon of modern bureaucracy, eventually got 10 years of prison. And not only that. He was also fined Rp1 billion with a possibility of 190 days in prison if he did not pay. Still to come. The panel of judges also ordered Nadiem to pay reparations of Rp809,597,125,000. If the defendant fails to pay the compensation within one month—which the court may extend by another month—the court will impose an additional five-year prison sentence. Total potential sentence: 15 years.

This lawsuit is about the purchase of Chromebook computers and Chrome Device Management under the education digitization program during the epidemic. The government once hailed the program as a lifeline for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, the same program has become the center of a corruption case that sent its former minister to prison.

The panel of judges chaired by Purwanto S. Abdullah stated that Nadiem was legally and conclusively demonstrated to have violated Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Corruption Eradication Law. The case is finished at first instance in the context of the procedural law. The gavel comes down. The verdict is delivered.

Hold on a second… This moment is where the story turns from drama to a plot-twist movie.

Just as the court appeared ready to adjourn, one voice echoed through the courtroom, prompting many law students to revisit their criminal law textbooks. Andi Saputra wrote a dissenting opinion (sometimes called a disagreeing view).

The majority of the panel found the defendant guilty. Judge Andi, however, dissented, saying, “I believe the defendant should be acquitted on all counts.”

Well, this case is not simply a passing footnote. In the legal world, a dissenting opinion is a sign that the matter does have substantial discussion. It means that judges looking at the files, listening to the witnesses, reading the records, and following the whole trial can come to different judgments.

Neither is it because Judge Andi overslept or misinterpreted the papers. He laid out the legal foundation. There was no mens rea of evil intent by Nadiem, he said. No personal conflicts of interest were identified. Permendikbud Number 5/2021 is classified as a government policy rather than a criminal offense. The audit by the Development Finance Comptroller (BPKP) determines that the causal relationship between Nadiem’s activities and the state losses is too weak to support a criminal case against a minister.

This is where people often become confused. “Huh, why do the judges have such diverse opinions?” That is precisely where the beauty and complexity of the law are. The criminal court isn’t about who is toughest or who slams the gavel hardest. The court must determine whether the prosecution has proved every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must establish the elements of unlawful acts, fault, intention, and a causal link to state losses. If the prosecution fails to prove any one of these elements, the court may acquit the defendant.

What makes the story even more compelling is that this is not the first time Indonesia has witnessed such a pattern.

Likewise, in the case of Nadiem’s consultant, Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, Judge Andi Saputra and Judge Eryusman both gave a dissenting opinion. They say Ibam is just an information technology consultant and does not have any decision-making powers. He does not like personal gain. He actually even reported to his boss about the weaknesses of using Chromebooks.

Huh… Why is the same judge seeing the issue from another aspect again?

Here is where the question comes that makes legal professors start stroking their chins. Is this situation merely an example of corruption, as the prosecutor claims? Alternatively, does the case represent a genuine discussion about the point at which poor public policy becomes criminal acts of corruption?

The prosecutor had asked for 18 years in jail and repayment of hundreds of billions of rupiah. So did the panel really provide a shorter punishment than the prosecution was asking for? But for a former minister long known for championing Indonesia’s digital education agenda, the 10-year prison sentence came as a devastating blow.

Nadiem expressed his feelings after the trial. He claimed he does not know where to find justice anymore. His legal team has also announced they will appeal. His major weapon includes not only tears or news conferences but also a dissenting opinion that demonstrates disagreement about his criminal guilt even at the court level.

Here’s where the legal education gets real pricey.

Many people believe the authorities should hold all officials who approved the policy accountable and sentence them to prison if the state suffers losses. However, criminal law does not operate in such a straightforward manner. The loss for the state is significant, but not enough. Prosecutors must also prove that the defendant committed a criminal offense with malicious intent, misused authority, and directly caused the state’s losses. That is why the dissenting opinion in this case is particularly compelling to study.

This verdict may not be the final word, after all. Appeal is pending. There is also the possibility of cassation. History has often shown us that Indonesian law allows for changes to rulings at the next level.

So don’t assume the story ends simply because the judge has struck the gavel. But beyond the 10-year prison sentence, the Rp1 billion fine, and the Rp809.6 billion compensation order, the case has sparked a much larger battle over the interpretation of corruption law. The majority of the panel concluded differently, highlighting the legal debate over the distinction between corruption, state losses arising from policy decisions, and criminal acts, while the dissenting judge stated, “In my opinion, the defendant should be acquitted.”

Sometimes the most fascinating chapter in the history of a case is a lone dissent. It seems that the Nadiem case has simply opened that chapter.

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,