TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The police have good enough reason to halt the investigation of non-active Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Deputy Chairman Bambang Widjojanto. The Indonesian Association of Advocates (Peradi) has ruled that Bambang did not breach the advocacy code of ethics, stating that there was no evidence he directed a witness to give false evidence in the 2010 Constitutional Court hearing on the disputed regional head election in West Kotawaringin, Central Kalimantan.
With this ruling, the police should drop the case. The Peradi oversight team questioned several witnesses who had also been summoned by the police. Peradi, which protects the advocacy profession, also obtained a statement from the same person who reported Bambang to the National Police Crime Investigation Division (Bareskrim). If there were no ethical violations, how is it possible that a person can be found guilty of a crime?
Peradi is only authorized to investigate ethical violations, while crimes are a matter for the police. But the criminal charge that Bambang directed a person to give false testimony, clearly falls within the scope of the advocacy code of ethics, which is within the remit of Peradi. During an investigation by the Peradi team, not a single witness said they knew of testimony that had been doctored by Bambang. Even the complainant did not know what exactly Bambang said when he allegedly asked a person to commit perjury in court.
The police must not ignore these facts. They should understand that at the time Bambang was working as an advocate, a profession protected by Law No. 18/2003 on Advocacy. This law underlines that an advocate has the same professional standing as a police officer, a prosecutor or a judge. More specifically, Article 16 states that an advocate cannot be charged with a criminal or civil offense when carrying out his or her professional duties defending a client in court.
Bambang, who was participating in a court hearing, should have been entitled to the professional protection mandated by this law, especially because of his reputation as an advocate with integrity. But if the legal umbrella for advocates can simply be ignored, what respect or dignity remains for a person defending their client?
In 2012, the police also signed a memorandum of understanding with Peradi on the Investigation Process Related to the Discharge of the Profession of Advocacy. Article 3 paragraph (1) of the memorandum states that any summons by investigators of an advocate carrying out his or her professional responsibilities must go through Peradi. In previous cases, the police abided by this MoU, but strangely, Bareskrim suddenly forgot all about it when detaining and questioning Bambang.
Besides being a legal violation, the detention of Bambang is a clear breach of his human rights. The National Human Rights Commission said that the forced detention was an abuse of authority. For example, the operation took place outside the Bareskrim official structure. The arrest, questioning and the failed attempt to detain Bambang, appeared more like an effort to criminalize the KPK leadership, than a normal criminal case.
For all these reasons, it would be truly unseemly if the police insist on sending the Bambang case to the Attorney General's Office. Conversely, the police will come across as more dignified if they issue an order to halt the case that has long been seen as being rife with machinations. (*)
