TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Muhammad Yusuf fidgeted in his chair then crossed his legs. He was quiet for a while, seemingly seeking the right answer to a question. "Basically, the 42 ministerial candidates whose backgrounds we looked into generally carried out normal banking transactions. Only a few were problematic," said Yusuf, director of the Financial Transactions Reporting and Analysis Center (PPATK), on the results of the background check on the ministerial candidates he submitted to President Joko Widodo.
He looked at his watch, and at his cellphone close by, in case there were new developments on the much-awaited announcement of the presidential cabinet. "Here's a text message from the prosecutors in Papua, saying they will support me if I'm named attorney general," he said, showing the cellphone screen to Tempo.
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is known to have received 43 names of candidates to look into, while the PPATK got only 42 names. One name that was not included in the PPATK list is reportedly that of Yusuf himself, who is being considered as attorney general. "It's just a rumor," he said, when asked about it.
Scheduled to happen on Wednesday last week, the president finally had to postpone announcing the Trisakti Cabinet, at Pier 303, Tanjung Priok harbor. He has 14 days to decide on his selection, counting from the day of his inauguration. Yusuf himself agreed that more time should be given and to trust Jokowi in this matter. "Let's not hurry. He would lose face if one of his ministers were later arrested by the KPK," said Yusuf.
He spoke close to two hours with Tempo reporter Heru Triyono at his office in Central Jakarta last week, over the financial due diligence on Jokowi's ministerial candidates.
The president asked the PPATK to look into the financial backgrounds of 42 out of 43 candidates. The missing name may have been yours. It's been reported that you are being considered for the attorney general position.
(Smiling) I don't know about that.
Can you think of any reason why the PPATK only sent 42 names?
I really don't know.
Out of those 42 names, none of them was yours?
How can I be asked to investigate myself?
In looking at their records, are you coordinating with the KPK?
The list of 43 names sent to the KPK has nothing to do with those at the PPATK. They're going their separate ways, because some of the names [at the PPATK], were not the same as in the KPK.
Reportedly, eight of those names were red-flagged by the KPK. What about the PPATK?
It wouldn't be ethical for me to say anything. That's the president's prerogative so it's a state secret. There are a few names that Pak Jokowi needs to reconsider, but I dare not make a judgment call like the KPK. They do the investigating, I just read from the transactions.
Are there more or less of the problematic ones?
Those names are currently classified and they involve the future of people. For sure, the 42 names have normal [financial transactions]. Only a few of them are suspicious and could be problematic.
Do the problematic ones come from political parties or are they professionals?
They were nominated by parties. The professionals are generally good.
All the problem names come from parties?
Not all. Some are good. I am certain no party has a policy to send their people to commit corruption.
By describing them as problematic, are you saying they could be indicted for corruption?
Look, what we found may not necessarily be criminally liable. They could be charged for receiving payments, when they're actually just being paid fees to be a resource person. (*)
Read the full interview in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine