Judicial Mafia Exists within Supreme Court

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - THE Indonesian judicial world has been thrown in a bad light of late after repeatedly failing to reflect the public’s sense of justice. Strange verdicts from a Surabaya state court acquitting the two police officers who threw tear gas into the crowds during the chaos at the Kanjuruhan stadium in Malang, East Java, and the Central Jakarta court ordering the delay of the 2024 general elections have raised eyebrows.  

The face of justice in this country is increasingly marred by corrupt judges. Throughout the period 2010-2022, the anti-corruption agency (KPK) named 21 judges as suspects in various cases. Most recently, chief judges Sudrajad Dimyati and Gazalba Saleh were arrested for allegedly receiving bribes in the Intidana Saving and Loan Cooperative case.

Judicial Commission’s Chief Mukti Fajar Nur Dewata was informed by KPK of the arrests, and following the interrogation of the two, the commission found a massive judicial mafia network within the court system. “Following up on it, we recommended a number of measures, such as short-term transfers, among others,” Mukti told Tempo reporters; Abdul Manan and Iwan Kurniawan, at his office last Tuesday, April 4.

During an approximately one-and-a-half-hour-long interview, the economic law professor with the Muhammadiyah University in Yogyakarta explained how judges got themselves caught up in a whirlpool of corruption and the commission’s efforts to deal with the issue. He also explained the commission’s relation with the Supreme Court and the plan to beef up the commission through a new bill.

What has the judicial commission done as regards the cases of Sudrajad Dimyati and Gazalba Saleh?

The commission’s primary duty is to investigate the judges that violate the code of ethics. The two judges were clearly arrested by KPK for bribery and so on. The crime is in KPK’s jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over ethics issues.

Have they been questioned?

We’ve questioned all the related parties including those in custody and the people around them.

Have criminal and ethical cases always been handled side by side?

The cases fall under different jurisdictions. We can do our job first or concurrently (with KPK) or afterward. First, it is more effective to handle the cases concurrently. We can synergize with KPK, exchange data and information, and so on. Second, we’ve dissected everything surrounding the Supreme Court and the two suspects and found that there was a network of the judicial mafia. Yes, there is a network.

What does the network look like?

There is a network in these cases too even though the type is different from that of a terrorist network. They have a scheme. It’s a group work. They did not do it on their own. They did it en masse.

They involve people at the Supreme Court?

It was the Supreme Court that we probed. That’s why the commission recommended the transfer of court clerks and anyone who were part of the network. That has been done. Around 16 or 17 were transferred.  

What were the other recommendations?

There are several. Mutation for the short term. The commission is keeping more intensive oversight now. Then prevention and case distribution mechanisms for the medium term. Sometimes, they start their dealings when cases are distributed. It now goes digital. In MA’s term, it is now ‘robotic’. Cases are now electronically assigned taking into consideration judges’ caseloads. For the long term, an institutional commitment from both the judicial commission and the Supreme Court. We’ve also proposed the Judicial Commission Bill to strengthen this agency so that it can work more effectively, and the Supreme Court has welcomed this initiative.

Is there a new pattern in the cases involving the two chief judges?

In cases that we handled or those that KPK handled and we participated, there were patterns. Some cases were directly handled by judges, usually at the court of first instance. The judge and the litigator would directly meet. For instance, the judge would ask the latter whether the latter wanted to win or lose. Some went through court clerks or staff. Some had no idea of this kind of game. They perhaps had no intention initially but were eventually enticed by staff into doing it.

Did you communicate with the Supreme Court’s Supervisory Body in handling this case?

The commission and the supervisory body have been in communication for several matters. Even in this era, we set up liaison teams to synergize with the Supreme Court. This is one way to improve communication, administration, and the oversight system.

People suspect that the Supreme Court probably did nothing….

They have followed up on our recommendations with staff mutation but why didn’t they communicate them (to the public)? We are talking about the national interest. It’s very concerning if the public no longer trusts the courts as has been said earlier. Judges have been arrested. In regions, graffiti was scribbled on, and all sorts of things were hurled at court offices. This shows that they are losing their credibility. Now, if we don’t start speaking, and don’t follow up with improvements, public trust will continue to decline and there will be chaos. If the public has no faith in the justice system, nor in the laws, then the law of jungle will prevail. He who has the most power will win. Once again, it won’t be laws but politics and power that will be commands. Then we will regress to the New Order era.

Read the Full Interview in Tempo English Magazine