Judge Does Not Accept Tom Lembong's Exception, Case Examination Continues

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The panel of judges at the Jakarta Corruption Court rejected the exception or objection submitted by the legal counsel of the defendant in the alleged corruption case involving raw sugar imports, former Minister of Trade, Tom Lembong. With this ruling, the judges ordered the public prosecutor to proceed with the examination of the alleged corruption case.

In the trial, Chief Judge Dennie Arsan Fatrika stated that the arguments presented by Tom Lembong's legal counsel were unfounded according to the law and could not be accepted.

"Declares that the objection of the defendant's legal counsel is inadmissible. Declares that the Corruption Court (Tipikor) has the authority to adjudicate this case," said Dennie at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Wednesday (13/3/2025).

Dennie also stated that the prosecutor's indictment complies with the provisions of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP). With this ruling, the panel of judges ordered the prosecutor to proceed with the examination of Tom Lembong's case.

In its legal considerations, the panel of judges emphasized that judges are only passive in resolving cases and do not have the authority to assess the feasibility of a case for trial. The authority to prosecute a case lies entirely in the hands of the public prosecutor.

"The public prosecutor has full authority to assess whether a case resulting from an investigation can proceed to trial. If insufficient evidence is found or the case does not meet the elements of a criminal act, the public prosecutor may terminate the prosecution based on applicable legal regulations," he stated.

Furthermore, the panel of judges also highlighted the alleged involvement of other parties in the corruption case related to sugar importation at the Ministry of Trade during the 2016-2023 period. The judge stated that the authority to prosecute other parties suspected of involvement lies with the public prosecutor, not the panel of judges.

"Considering that in the criminal act of corruption related to sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade that occurred in 2016-2023, it is suspected that there are still other parties involved or should be held accountable. The authority to prosecute them lies entirely in the hands of the public prosecutor and not the authority of the panel of judges," said the judge.

The judge also stated that the indictment submitted by the public prosecutor had met the formal and material requirements as stipulated in Article 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, all objections submitted by Tom Lembong's legal team were declared inadmissible.

With this decision, the trial of the alleged corruption case involving Tom Lembong will enter the stage of examining witnesses and evidence that will be presented by the public prosecutor in the next trial.

After the panel of judges read out their verdict, Tom Lembong's attorney, Ari Yusuf Amir, reminded the panel of judges about the request for a copy of the audit results from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) that had been submitted last week. The audit was related to alleged state losses in sugar import activities in 2015–2016.

He also explained several legal bases that support that his party has the right to receive a copy of the audit results. "Once we get the copy, we can bring in experts to see the BPKP calculations. However, if they are only presented once, we do not have that opportunity," he said.

Upon this request, the judge then ordered the public prosecutor to submit a copy of the BPKP audit results to Tom Lembong's attorney.

Meanwhile, Tom Lembong stated that he respected the panel of judges' decision to reject the exceptions filed in the trial of the case he was facing. Although disappointed with the charges which he said did not reflect reality, he asserted that he was ready to prove the truth in court.

"We highly respect the panel of judges' decision on the exception we submitted. I am grateful for the opportunity given and the quick follow-up by the panel of judges, where the decision was delivered only two days after the response from the prosecutor," said Tom Lembong, after the trial.

He also highlighted the decision of the panel of judges requiring the BPKP audit report related to his case to be immediately submitted to him as the defendant. He requested that the obligation be immediately carried out by the public prosecutor.

"This is important for the process to run fairly, so that we have time to research and prepare relevant expert witnesses," he explained.

However, Tom Lembong did not hide his disappointment with the charges which he considered to have regrettable qualities. He asserted that he would prove the real facts in the trial.