University of Indonesia (UI) criminal law expert Gandjar Laksmana Bonaprapta asked the Attorney General’s Office to reveal the chronology of the handling of the alleged corruption case involving raw crystal sugar imports that ensnared former Minister of Trade Thomas Trikasih Lembong alias Tom Lembong.
Gandjar said that transparency regarding the chronology was important to convince the public that the investigation was purely law enforcement.
“So, we want to assess the fairness of a process. Once something is unnatural, it will be difficult later, the public will not believe that there is no politics and so on,” said Gandjar when confirmed in Jakarta, today.
He explained that case handling usually begins for three reasons, namely being caught red-handed, findings by law enforcement, or reports of complaints from the public. However, the Adhyaksa Corps has not disclosed this so far.
“I didn’t ask who the reporter was. Just when was the report? And because of what did this process start? Because there was a report, if there was a report, when? So we’ll see. Maybe it has been reported since 2017,” said Gandjar.
This legal expert continued, “It makes no more sense why it was ignored for so long. Could it have been reported 3 days before the suspect was named? Oh, the process is really fast. So, we want to assess the fairness of the process.”
He said that law enforcement must be prudent and lawful as regulated in the criminal procedural law.
“Once the process is not legal, it is flawed. If it is flawed, repeat from the beginning. That is the consequence of violating procedural law. So, repeat from the start,” he said.
Apart from that, Gandjar does not question why the case that occurred in 2015 was only investigated with an investigation starting in October 2023.
“The expiration date for corruption cases is 18 years,” said Gandjar.
Previously (29/10), the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) named the Minister of Trade for the 2015-2016 period Thomas Trikasih Lembong (TTL) or Tom Lembong as a suspect in the alleged criminal act of corruption in sugar import activities at the Ministry of Trade (Kemendag) in 2015-2016 .
Director of Jampidsus Investigations at the Attorney General’s Office, Abdul Qodar, explained that Tom Lembong’s involvement in the case began when in 2015, at an inter-ministerial coordination meeting, it was concluded that Indonesia had a sugar surplus so there was no need to import sugar.
However, in the same year, Tom Lembong as Minister of Trade at that time gave permission to import raw crystal sugar to PT AP. (Ant/P-2)
#Kejaung #Pushed #opening #Chronology #Tom #Lembong #Case
**Interview with Gandjar Laksmana Bonaprapta on the Thomas Lembong Corruption Case**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Gandjar. What can you tell us about the recent developments in the corruption case against former Trade Minister Thomas Lembong?
**Gandjar Laksmana Bonaprapta:** Thank you for having me. Recently, the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office has named Thomas Lembong a suspect in a corruption case involving raw crystal sugar imports. This case has raised significant public interest and concern, particularly because Lembong is a prominent figure who has been an outspoken critic of the current government.
**Interviewer:** Transparency has been a big topic surrounding this case. Why is it so crucial?
**Gandjar:** Transparency is vital for public trust in the legal system. When handling high-profile cases like this, the public needs to see a clear and documented chronology of events. If details are murky or selectively disclosed, it could lead to widespread speculation that the case is politically motivated rather than purely a legal matter.
**Interviewer:** You’ve mentioned the importance of understanding how this investigation began. What are the typical triggers for such cases?
**Gandjar:** Typically, investigations can start in three ways: being caught red-handed, findings made by law enforcement, or public complaints. However, in Lembong’s case, the Attorney General’s Office has not yet revealed the circumstances that sparked the investigation, which is concerning. We need to know when complaints were made and who made them to assess the legitimacy of the investigation.
**Interviewer:** Do you believe there’s a chance that this case has been politically influenced?
**Gandjar:** That’s a valid concern, and without transparency, it becomes difficult to rule out political motivations. If there were reports made recently versus a long-standing issue that was ignored, it would certainly suggest a different narrative. Public perception hinges on clarity in how this case was approached and prosecuted.
**Interviewer:** In light of this, what steps should the Attorney General’s Office take moving forward?
**Gandjar:** They must prioritize transparency. Disclosing the timeline of events, how the investigation was initiated, and any relevant details will help alleviate fears of politicization. It’s essential for the integrity of the judicial process and for maintaining public trust that everything is handled scrupulously.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Gandjar, for your insights on this important matter. We hope to see a resolution that upholds justice and public confidence in the system.
**Gandjar:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we continue to advocate for transparency in our legal processes.
