Communications EXPERT Emrus Sihombing hopes that law enforcers will be more careful in commenting outside the courtroom. This is intended to create a more conducive and independent law enforcement climate.
“Law enforcement must not be influenced by opinions and must not form opinions,” he said in Jakarta, Friday (11/10).
This statement also commented on the emergence of a video of an interview between the Director of Jampidsus Prosecution at the Attorney General’s Office, Sutikno, with one of the national television stations, which commented on Sandra Dewi’s testimony in the alleged tin corruption trial with defendant Harvey Moeis on Thursday (10/10/2024).
Also read: The Attorney General’s Office is reluctant to engage in polemics regarding Sandra Dewi’s wedding ring
This, according to him, shows that law enforcers are immature in communicating. According to him, there is a principle of communication justice in responding to trials.
“Law enforcers have a very wide space. Starting from investigations, preparing the Investigation Report (BAP), reading the demands to reading the defense in the trial. So that space should be used to express comments,” he explained.
In the 1 minute 56 second video, the prosecutor’s office appears to reveal that he actually has new evidence in the form of transfer evidence that can refute Sandra Dewi’s testimony in the trial.
Also read: Sandra Dewi says the condition of Babel is tense after the tin corruption case was revealed
According to him, answering journalists’ questions outside of court is actually perfectly legal for law enforcement to do. However, he said, the information conveyed must be limited.
“Don’t let what is not in the trial be conveyed outside the trial. If it is a new fact, it should be presented at the trial, not in a media interview outside the trial,” he stressed.
This, he said, could influence public opinion so it should not be said by a law enforcer. Even when law enforcers answer media questions, the information conveyed should be normative in nature and not touch the subject matter.
“For example, as is usually done by the police. The answer is ‘that is the authority of the investigator’ or something like that. That is correct. But if there are new facts, they should only be revealed in court, not outside the court,” he stressed. (Ykb/I-2)
#Law #Enforcers #Asked #Discreetly #Reveal #Facts #Court
