Tom Lembong Trial, Judge Bans "Live" to Doubts on Prosecutor's Witnesses

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – After the judge rejected the exception or objection of the defendant, the Minister of Trade for 2015-2016, Tom Lembong, the trial of the alleged corruption case involving raw sugar imports proceeded to witness examination.

In the first trial of witness examination held at the Jakarta Corruption Court today (20/3/2025), the session was marked by the judge's prohibition on media personnel from broadcasting the trial live. Additionally, the judge ordered the public prosecutor to submit the audit report on the calculation of state losses conducted by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP). The session also featured skepticism from Tom Lembong's legal team regarding the witness presented by the prosecutor.

The prohibition for media personnel to broadcast live the hearing with the agenda of witness examination was conveyed by Chief Justice Dennie Arsan Fatrika shortly after opening the session.

"I remind you, please cover it, but I'm sorry, don't broadcast it live or directly. It can be understood, friends from the media, from journalists," said Dennie.

The reason is, the panel of judges is worried that if the witness examination hearing is broadcast live, it could affect the originality of other witnesses' statements. "That's what we avoid by not broadcasting it live," he said.

As stipulated in Article 159 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Article 167 paragraph (3) of KUHAP, it is regulated that witnesses are prohibited from interacting with one another, either before providing testimony or during the trial. This aims to ensure that all witnesses do not collaborate to manipulate their statements during the proceedings.

The witness examination trial then continued with the examination of four witnesses presented by the public prosecutor.

They are Cecep Saepul Rahman, a Junior Expert Planner at the Directorate of Food, Marine Products, and Fisheries Industry of the Ministry of Industry, and Edy Endar Sriyono, Head of the Standardization Section at the Directorate of Food, Marine Products, and Fisheries Industry of the Ministry of Industry from 2011 to 2016. Additionally, Eko Aprilianto Sudrajat, Head of the Trade Attaché of the Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia in Seoul, and Muhammad Yani, Deputy Head of Sub-Directorate 2 for Agricultural, Forestry, and Fisheries Product Imports at the Ministry of Trade from 2014 to 2016.

Actually, there were two other witnesses scheduled to be examined as well, namely Robert J Bintaryo, Director of Basic Commodities and Strategic Goods at the Directorate General of Domestic Trade from 2014–2016, and Susy Herawaty, Head of the Sub-Directorate for Agricultural, Forestry, Marine, and Fisheries Goods at the Ministry of Trade from 2016–2018. However, due to time constraints, their examination was postponed to Monday (24/3/2025).

During the examination of a number of witnesses, the attorney questioned the validity of the witnesses. Because, they assume the witnesses did not directly experience the incident being sued.

One of the witnesses' misunderstandings was seen during Edy Endar's examination. He claimed not to know when Tom Lembong's attorney asked whether the Minister of Trade Regulation Number 117 of 2015 concerning Sugar Import Provisions regulates sugar imports for industrial purposes. "If according to the application, the submission of the food and beverage industry, it does not specifically mention what it is for," he added.

The attorney's doubts about the prosecutor's witnesses resurfaced during the examination of Cecep Saepul Rahman, who in 2015–2016 or when the alleged sugar import corruption case occurred, served as a data analyst in the evaluation and reporting section of the Directorate of Food, Seafood and Fisheries Industry, Ministry of Industry.

When the prosecutor asked about the basis of the recommendation given for sugar imports, Cecep said he did not know. "For the details (of the recommendation), at that time I did not handle it directly," he said.

He even mentioned the basis for giving the recommendation. "As far as I know, (the recommendation) was decided in a coordination meeting in the form of a national allocation, then business actors submitted a request. After we conducted an analysis, then the recommendation was issued," he said.

When the public prosecutor asked about the mechanism by which the company obtained recommendations for sugar imports in the 2015–2016 period, Cecep repeatedly admitted that he “didn’t know much” or “didn’t know.”

By Tom Lembong's legal team, the presence of the witness was considered irrelevant because he did not directly handle the issuance of the sugar import recommendation. "So, it can be said that the witness did not directly witness the case we are discussing?" asked the Head of Tom Lembong's legal team, Ari Yusuf Amir.

"Yes, in 2016 I did not handle the issuance (of recommendations)," said Cecep.

Ari emphasized that based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), valid witness testimony is that which is delivered in court, not that which is recorded in the Examination Report (BAP).

He also asked the witnesses to give honest statements without pressure. "Maybe when you were in the prosecutor's office you felt afraid or pressured, but in this trial the witnesses are free to tell the truth. If something is not within the witness's capacity to answer, then just say it honestly," he said.

The panel of judges also had to remind the witnesses several times to reveal what they knew, not just their opinions. "It's clear, yes. If we keep reminding each other, the trial will never end," said Dennie Arsan.

In addition, during the trial, the panel of judges ordered the prosecutor to submit the results of the audit by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP). In addition to being submitted to the panel of judges, the audit results were requested to be submitted to Tom Lembong's legal team. The audit results were requested to be submitted before the examination or submission of experts from the BPKP auditor.

The judge's order was to fulfill the rights of the defendant and his legal counsel to study and understand the BPKP report.

The judge had actually ordered the public prosecutor to submit the audit results during the interim verdict reading hearing for Tom Lembong, Thursday (13/3/2025). However, the prosecutor has not submitted it because he is worried that other parties may use the evidence outside of the interests of the trial.

Tom Lembong's legal team also highlighted the absence of a copy of the BPKP audit. "This has become a big speculation for us. Does this audit really exist? Is it not finished? Or is there something with the audit that makes the prosecutor's office seem reluctant to present it?" said Ari.

The existence of the BPKB audit is considered very important in the trial process to ensure a balance between the prosecutor's demands and the defendant's defense. "When the trial takes place, all parties must have the same documents so that there is balance. They demand, we defend, and that is the essence of justice," he said.

For information, Tom Lembong was charged with enriching others, causing the state to suffer losses of Rp 515.4 billion. In his explanation, the public prosecutor explained that Tom issued a letter of approval for the import of raw crystal sugar for the period 2015-2016 to 10 private companies.

The approval was given without being based on a coordination meeting between ministries and without recommendations from the Ministry of Industry. There are 21 sugar import approval letters that do not comply with the provisions of laws and regulations.