(in a dark, sarcastic tone, à la Jimmy Carr) Well, well, well, what do we have here? A corrupt government official, Tom Lembong, caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and his lawyer, Ari Yusuf Amir, is objecting to the judge’s decision to reject their pretrial petition. How shocking. (pauses for comedic effect)
Now, let’s break it down, shall we? Tom’s lawyer is arguing that the pretrial judges should assess the quality of the evidence, not just the formality. Ah, but isn’t that just a fancy way of saying, “We know our client is guilty, but can we please just get a slap on the wrist?” (smirking)
And what’s this? Ari is citing the MK Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which states that the appointment of a suspect must be preceded by at least two pieces of evidence. Ah, but I’m sure Tom’s lawyer is just trying to find a loophole to get his client off the hook. I mean, who needs evidence when you have a good lawyer, right? (chuckles)
(in a bumbling, inept tone, à la Rowan Atkinson) Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I think I understand what’s going on here. (pauses, looks around) Tom’s lawyer is trying to say that the law is unclear, and that’s why his client shouldn’t be held accountable. Ah, but isn’t that just like saying, “I didn’t do it, officer”? (in a silly voice) “The law is unclear, I tell you! I’m innocent, I swear!” (normal voice) Oh, come on, Tom, we’re not buying it.
(in a dry, witty tone, à la Ricky Gervais) And what’s with the inclusion of the word “may” in Article 2 Paragraph 1 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law? That’s like saying, “I may have taken a bribe, but I’m not sure.” (smirking) It’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card. “I may have committed a crime, but the law says I may not have, so I’m off the hook!” (chuckles)
(in a loud, boisterous tone, à la Lee Evans) Oh, this is bloody ridiculous! Tom’s lawyer is carrying on like a plonker, trying to get his client off scot-free. (points finger) You know what? I think Tom should be grateful he’s not in jail already. I mean, corruption? That’s like the biggest no-no in the book. (wags finger) You can’t just take bribes and expect to get away with it, mate.
And what’s the outcome of all this? The judge rejects the pretrial petition, and Tom’s suspect status remains in effect. Ah, justice is served, I suppose. (smirking)
Well, that’s all for today, folks. (in a cheeky tone) Thanks for joining me on this thrilling adventure through the world of corruption and bureaucratic red tape. (winks) Until next time, when we’ll no doubt be discussing more thrilling tales of government officials doing dodgy dealings… (chuckles)
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta – In a stunning turn of events, the sole judge presiding over the pretrial hearing of corruption suspect Tom Lembong has ruled against the defendant, dismissing his petition in its entirety. This decision has left Tom’s legal team reeling, with his lawyer, Ari Yusuf Amir, publicly expressing his strong objection to the ruling.
Ari emphasized that the pretrial judges should be assessing the quality of the evidence presented, rather than just focusing on formalities. He pointed out that the judges still seem to be operating under an outdated paradigm when it comes to understanding the true meaning of a pretrial, which is at odds with the principles set forth in the MK’s decision. Specifically, Ari referred to MK Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which clearly states that the appointment of a suspect must be supported by at least two solid pieces of evidence – a crucial guarantee of the suspect’s human rights.
“The focus of the law when it comes to corruption should not be solely on potential losses, but rather on the actual losses that have occurred,” Ari explained, highlighting the importance of this distinction in Tom’s case. He added that the investigators have failed to present any concrete evidence of state losses from any institution, which he believes is a critical oversight.
Tom’s legal team has also taken issue with the inclusion of the word ‘may’ in Article 2 Paragraph 1 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law, arguing that it creates a lack of clarity that can have far-reaching consequences for all parties involved. “The law must be clear and unambiguous, not confusing or open to interpretation,” Ari emphasized. “Unfortunately, the judge’s decision failed to take into account the anomalies in this case that we presented, and we regret that our arguments were not accepted.”
Ari reiterated that every legal process must be carried out with the utmost transparency and a commitment to justice. “We will continue to fight tirelessly to ensure that the rights of our client are protected and that justice is upheld,” he vowed.
This latest development marks a significant setback for Tom, the former Trade Minister, whose suspect status remains in effect following the judge’s dismissal of his pretrial petition. The decision was handed down by Judge Tumpanuli Marbun of the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday, November 26, 2024.
