THIS Wednesday, many will be glued to their TV sets. Judge Amiruddin Zakaria's gavel will once again pound his desk, signaling a verdict being taken—previously in Tommy Suharto's case—now it will be House speaker Akbar Tandjung, Dadang Sukandar and Winfried Simatupang.
These are the accused in the so-called Buloggate II scandal, which occurred at the time Akbar Tandjung was state secretary. Although most of the judges kept their silence, the chairman of the panel Amiruddin Zakaria spared time for two interviews with Ardi Bramantyo, Adi Prasetya, Dede, and Arif Zulkifli of TEMPO. Excerpts:
Rumors say Akbar will get two years in prison?
I just laughed when I heard that rumor. That's not true. People don't dare to confirm with me. Of course this is a politically loaded case, but our judgment is purely judicial. There is no concern about politics.
So far, have there been any calls from politicians trying to influence you?
I turn off all my cell phones. You could not reach me, could you? I'm particularly careful on this. On one thing, I don't want people pushing me around. On the other, I will certainly fight any such attempt.
What if they try through the other judges?
I believe they won't. If there is, it will definitely be discussed.
Why are the main questions of the court concentrated on the Raudatul Jannah Foundation?
This is one thing redundant. The panel of judges, in line with the Criminal Code Procedures (KUHAP), could only examine what the prosecutor has contested. The panel of judges may not deviate from what is being disputed. If the panel does deviate, the defendant's attorney will object. You may ask any legal expert, but don't ask those with political agendas. In court we wanted to disclose whether the indictment is justified or not. As you noticed, the panel of judges requested the attendance of Dadi Surjadi's biological mother. But we failed to do so, as she was sick. This was also not in the court's official report. As we thought it was important, we wanted her testimony. Thus, in court we may ask transparently.
TEMPO has interviewed the late Dadi Surjadi's mother. From her answers, it doesn't make sense if the taxi driver was involved.
We have already asked for her to attend, but that didn't happen as she was sick.
Dadi's family has insisted that they testify about what really happened. Is it possible that Dadi was only a scapegoat?
The authority to bring a witness is not with the panel of judges but the prosecutors. All we got was a notice mentioning that she could not attend as she was ill. The panel was really trying to disclose what was actually happening.
How come a judge's authority could not be used to break open the case? Even for the sake of looking for evidence?
No. Where do you think the panel of judges could find any evidence?
How about the funds that were strongly alleged used by the Golkar Party?
Yes, we pursue that also. I was even criticized for going further than a prosecutor. I want to clarify that as a judge, I want to be fair. We will do everything possible within the law to disclose everything.
So you know that there's something wrong with the prosecutor's indictment?
I don't want to comment about it. But what is certain, the defendant's explanations don't make sense.
In what way?
I'm sorry, this case is not closed yet. I can not comment.
On the Raudatul Jannah bank account that was not seized, we have asked the prosecutor, Fahmi. His response was why should they seize it while there's no money in it?
That's not our job. I won't say whose job it is.
So implicitly you want to say that there are weaknesses in the indictment?
If anyone says that the explanations of the defendant didn't make sense, it's true. But the panel of judges has tried to disclose it.
What about putting another witness on the stand?
Who?
Golkar Treasurer, M.S. Hidayat, for instance?
That is not relevant. The indictment describes how the act was done. We could not deviate from that. If we do, the attorney will object. So these are things that people sometimes don't understand
So you feel restricted by the indictment that in your eyes seems substandard?
I never said it was not good. I also can not comment as the case is not yet closed, ha-ha-ha… What I wanted to say is that the panel of judges has its tasks—examining the case only on the scope of the indictment. You may ask any professor on that.
Isn't your conscience disturbed viewing the very restricted indictment?
I can not comment. The case is not yet closed.
Didn't you smell any plot behind the restricted indictment that only touches the Foundation?
I can not comment on that. It is outside the panel's authority. I want to confirm once again, the panel has resolved to disclose whatever is possible and with all our effort to disclose what is not reasonable.
Will the verdict on Akbar Tandjung bring hope to the people? Will the public's sense of justice be satisfied or not?
Which public justice? The press's? Ha-ha-ha…
So we can just guess?
No, there is no decision yet. How could we stand on an unfinished building? Even our wives don't know anything, let alone other people.
It was said that Laurens Siburian was Akbar Tandjung's contact with the panel of judges?
I swear I never met him. It is true I saw him hanging around, as I do too, but I don't know why he does it. He is a lawyer.
He never met you?
Never. I assure you and the public, there's no intervention from anybody. This is truly just.
"Nikmati tulisan lengkap artikel ini pada versi cetak dan versi digital majalah Tempo"
Silahkan hubungi customer service kami untuk berlangganan edisi cetak di 021-5360409 ext 9.
Silahkan hubungi Pusat Data Analisa Tempo untuk mendapatkan versi arsip dalam bentuk PDF, di 021-7255624 ext 486
Download versi digitalnya :
1. iPad : melalui aplikasi Tempo Media Apps. Klik disini
2. Samsung Galaxy Tab melalui aplikasi Samsung E Reader. Klik disini
3. Huawei Ideos S7 melalui aplikasi XL-Baca. Klik disini
