TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The recall of Prosecutor Yudi Kristiana from his secondment at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is yet another evidence that something is not quite right with the Attorney-General's Office (AGO). Yudi was tasked by the KPK with investigating the bribery case involving North Sumatra Governor Gatot Pujo Nugroho. He also headed the interrogation of Evy Susanti, Gatot's wife, who allegedly had bribed the NasDem Party Secretary-General Patrice Rio Capella.
NasDem, the political party led by media tycoon Surya Paloh, was the main supporter of Muhammad Prasetyo as the attorney-general in the cabinet of President Joko Widodo. This connection merits scrutiny as a factor in the recall of Prosecutor Yudi, particularly since the AGO has provided no good reason to recall him from the KPK.
It has been four years since Yudi was seconded to the KPK, with another year to go before his term ends. Indeed, policy dictates that the AGO can, at any time, withdraw its secondment at the anti-graft organization at any time. The stated reason for the recall was that Yudi was being promoted to the training and education board, which has nothing to do with investigating cases.
This lame excuse prompts us to look for the real reason behind the recall. In this particular case, Rio Capella was cited as having accepted the name of Attorney-General Agung Prasetyo and as having received Rp200 million as a fee to influence Prasetyo. The aim is to urge the AGO to order the prosecutor involved in investigating the misuse of social welfare funds by the North Sumatra prosecutor's office.
In his court statement, Governor Gatot denied charges he had communicated with Attorney-General Prasetyo to stop the corruption case hanging over him. But he did contact Patrice, who is well acquainted with Prasetyo. Both of them were fellow exectutives in the NasDem Party. This detail is important since Gatot and Patrice met with NasDem Chairman Surya Paloh to discuss the charges just beforehand.
These are the links that triggered suspicions of Attorney-General Agung Prasetyo using his authority to cover up the crime that Yudi is investigating. The attorney-general has a clear conflict of interests: those to his former party vs. those as a law enforcer.
At the KPK, Yudi has carried out his tasks commendably. He never wavered at demanding a 10-year prison sentence for lawyer Otto Cornelis Kaligis for his involvement in the case. Kaligis is another part of the Gatot corruption case. He bribed a commercial court judge to favor one of Gatot's subordinates in charges of misusing the provincial government's social welfare funds. By being able to prove there had been bribery involved, Yudi became a threat to the cover-up attempt. Here, the conflict of interest lies with Kaligis, who happens to be a member of the NasDem council of ethics.
The Kaligis bribery case and similar charges against Rio are the wild cards that could drag down Prasetyo. Instead of recalling Yudi, who happens to be KPK's best prosecutor his dissertation submitted to Diponegoro University criticized the AGO for his lack of independence in handling cases it is Prasetyo who should recuse himself from office until the corruption case is resolved. We cannot expect any form of law enforcement today if Prasetyo himself is tied to this conflict of interest.
The recall of Prosecutor Yudi must be annulled because it would weaken the KPK. This organization is filled with specialists from legal government agencies, known for their corruption. So long as the KPK is unable to recruit its own personnel, the habit of recalling people back to their departments of origin can become a frequent occurence. That is why, before regulations on recruiting its own investigators and prosecutors are set up, the KPK must have on hand a way of rejecting calls to recall their investigators when a major and important case is being processed. (*)
