TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - As the corruption case involving the state-owned power company PLN gets ready to go to court, the Attorney General's Office (AGO), has refuted charges that the case was contrived. According to Deputy Attorney General in charge of special crimes, Widyopramono, the investigation has focussed on seeking evidence. They say it will be up to the court to determine how relevant they are to the case. The following is Tempo's interview with Widyopramono last week.
Why is the AGO so intent on trying the PLN corruption case?
It first began from a case of malfunctioning electricity. The power went off so often that the AGO had to settle matters. We are not blocking the construction of power installations. We're not looking for problems. This is not a contrived case. We are involved because something was not right.
In your view, what exactly is the crime involving the Belawan PLN turbine tender?
The contract was different. It was out of place and there was the matter of direct vendor appointment. Say we have a Toyota car. The best repair garage would be the one run by Toyota. That's also how Siemens machines should be. But people find ways for others to take part. So the process of direct selection was carried out.
Was the auction contrived?
Yes, it looks that way.
If the prosecutor regards it as a mistake, why is the manager being targeted?
Wait for the right time. Handling a case should not be done carelessly. We are being selective. We have studied this case carefully. We don't intend to discredit anyone by treating this case lightly.
The prosecutor said the losses to the State was around Rp322 trillion. How did he come to that number?
It was not the AGO. For details ask the BPKP (Financial and Development Oversight Board). They have the calculations. The BPKP based it on evidence and legal violations by them.
Mapna has done their work, the engine has been installed and is functioning. So, where's the loss?
Don't let the logic of a layman be the basis of whether a person is guilty or innocent. The basis should be whether the results of the investigation is correct, and whether there's proof. That will be tested in Court.
One of the accused claimed a prosecutor tried to extort money from him. What's the follow-up on that?
At the AGO, the investigator in the case is the Deputy Attorney General in charge of oversight. In my view, when one of the prosecutors dare to do something outside the prevailing parameters, it would be like digging his own grave. (*)
