TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - It seems that the police only tried to be on the safe side when they named non-active Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok) as suspect.

The legal process for the alleged blasphemy crime accused against Basuki should be done independently and objectively, without intervention or pressure from any group.

What was concluded by the National Headquarter of the Indonesian National Police on Basuki’s case shows pragmatism victory over objective legal principles.

Chief of the Indonesian National Police General Tito Karnavian may say that the naming is purely objective.

Before a decision was made, it was also reported that there was a heated debate among investigators.

However, the suspicion that the police are under pressure from the protestors of the 4 November rally is unavoidable.

It all began from Basuki’s statement on the governor election and the the concept of a leader according Surah Al-Maidah verse 51 in the Thousand Islands on the 27th September.

Police investigation has proven Ahok’s statement is different from what is circulated in social media – which was then used to file charges against Ahok on religious blasphemy charges to the police.

In an open case reconstruction on Tuesday, an expert witness invited by the police has said that Ahok could be free from any kind of arrest.

According to him, most of information given by the witnesses tend to say that there is no religious blasphemy or criminal acts.

Another witness, a legal expert, said that he was in the middle of those who think that Ahok’s statement in the Thousand Islands does not meet the elements of crimes regulated by Article 156a of the Criminal Code on religious blasphemy.

Some people were already angry and staged a rally on November 4.

They even plan to stage a bigger rally on November 25 if the police are not serious to investigate Ahok’s case.

It is difficult to deny that the threats of rallies also influence the decision to name Ahok as suspect.

The hullabaloo of the November 4 rally has made us realize that we have not managed to consolidate democracy.

The police are still afraid to act professionally because of pressures from certain groups.

Although it is clear that Ahok’s statement is a blunder that crosses the limit, Basuki’s statement cannot be considered a religious blasphemy yet.

What is worrying is that this incident can also set a bad precedent. Somebody can be named a suspect like Ahok because there is pressure from mass groups, whoever they are.

This must not happen.

Law enforcement apparatus should stay objective.

Although police chief pledge an open trial just like the case of the murder case with the defendant Jessica Kumala Wongso, they must guarantee the process is free from intevention.

When the trial is held openly, can the judges be care not to make a decision pragmatically?

The process of investigating this Ahok cases will become our test in practicing democracy and the willingness to respect the law.

Law enforcement should not be afraid to show their professionalism.

Groups who sue Ahok should also be willing if later on the judges makes a ruling that is against what they wish.

(*)