DIRECTOR OF Investigations at the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (JAM-Pidsus) The Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) Abdul Qohar denied the news circulating that his party had arrested the Chairman of the Surabaya District Court (PN) Dadi Rachamdi in a case of alleged bribery and/or gratification related to the acquittal of a murder convict , Ronald Tannur.
“I answered that there was no issue regarding the arrest of the chairman of the Surabaya District Court, it is not true,” said Qohar at the Attorney General’s Office Complex, Jakarta, Monday (4/11) evening.
This issue has been circulating since this afternoon following the examination of the former Head of the Legal and Judicial Training Agency of the Supreme Court (MA) by the Supreme Court’s internal examination team at the Attorney General’s Office.
However, based on a press statement held in the evening, Qohar announced that the new suspect in the case was Ronald’s mother, Meirizka Widjaja.
JAM-Pidsus investigators believe that Meirizka was the party who gave money to bribe the Surabaya District Court judge so that her child would be acquitted. During the processing of this case, Meirizka gave Rp. 1.5 billion to Ronald’s lawyer, namely Lisa Rachmat.
Lisa also covered a number of expenses from her own pocket amounting to IDR 2 billion. So, the total bribes and/or gratifications to hand down Ronald’s acquittal amounted to IDR 3.5 billion. (J-2)
#Attorney #General #Denies #Arresting #Chairman #Surabaya #District #Court
**Interview with Legal Analyst Dr. Sarah Putri on Abdul Qohar’s Apparent Luxury Watch**
**Interviewer**: Good afternoon, Dr. Putri. Thank you for joining us. Recently, there has been some public outcry regarding Abdul Qohar, the Director of Investigations at the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes, being seen wearing a luxurious Audemars Piguet wristwatch. What are your thoughts on the implications of this?
**Dr. Putri**: Good afternoon! Thank you for having me. This situation raises important questions regarding the ethics and transparency expected from public officials. Wearing such an expensive watch, particularly in a high-profile position, can lead to suspicions about the sources of their income and overall accountability.
**Interviewer**: Indeed. How do you think this perception affects public trust in the legal system?
**Dr. Putri**: The public’s trust in the legal system is delicate, and incidents like this can damage it significantly. People expect that officials in sensitive roles act with integrity and modesty, given their responsibilities. A display of luxury can be interpreted as a lack of awareness or, worse, potential corruption.
**Interviewer**: Some argue that the price of the watch should not matter if it was acquired legally. What’s your stance on that perspective?
**Dr. Putri**: While it’s true that owning expensive items isn’t inherently wrong, context matters significantly—in particular, the lifestyle and financial disclosure of public servants. Transparency is key. If it’s proven that the watch was purchased legitimately, it might mitigate some concerns, but the broader implications about perception and ethics remain critical.
**Interviewer**: What steps do you think could be taken to address public concerns over this issue?
**Dr. Putri**: One effective approach could be for officials to voluntarily disclose their assets and income. This can build trust and transparency. Additionally, institutions could establish clear codes of ethics regarding the appearance and behavior of public officials, including guidelines on the acceptance of luxury items.
**Interviewer**: Thank you, Dr. Putri. Your insights are invaluable as this situation continues to unfold.
**Dr. Putri**: Thank you for having me! Let’s hope for a resolution that upholds the public’s trust in our legal institutions.