The verdict is scheduled for July 18, 2025. Tom Lembong hopes the judge will focus on facts, reality, and logic.

JAKARTA, KOMPAS - While reading the rebuttal at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Monday (14/7/2025), the defendant in the sugar import corruption case, Thomas Trikasih Lembong, emphasized the need for a cooling-off period before the verdict to maintain objectivity and clarity of thought. The man commonly known as Tom Lembong hopes that all parties, especially the panel of judges, can focus on the facts, reality, and logic so that the decision can uphold justice.

As reported, Tom was accused of enriching others, resulting in a state loss of Rp 515.4 billion. The man, who was also the Head of the Investment Coordinating Board, was said to have issued 21 import approval letters for raw crystal sugar processed into white crystal sugar to unauthorized companies, namely private companies producing refined sugar, Kompas.id (6/3/2025).

The action is considered to have caused a loss to the state finances amounting to Rp 578 billion, including enriching private sugar entrepreneurs. The prosecutor then demanded that Tom be sentenced to 7 years in prison and a fine of Rp 750 million, with a subsidiary of six months' imprisonment.

While reading the rebuttal, Tom illustrated the trial process he underwent as a battle in an election. Leading up to the determination of votes in the election, there is a quiet period to think clearly before making a decision.

"Similarly, in a process such as an election, where after an intense campaign battle, we hold what is called a 'quiet period', I also want to invite all parties to now maintain objectivity and clarity of thought so that we can focus on facts, reality, and logic," he stated.

He stated that the case was the first legal matter in his life. Throughout the proceedings, he witnessed firsthand from the defendant's chair the battle between the public prosecutor, legal counsel, witnesses, experts, the defendant, and other parties.

All parties truly mobilized all their resources for victory. He also likened the phenomenon to the fog of war.

Upon reaching the duplicate stage, where the judge will soon render his verdict, he hopes that everyone can take a moment to pause. This pause is expected to allow the dust, ash, fog, and smoke from the courtroom battles to settle. Thus, the air can return to clarity and the atmosphere can become quiet once again.

"Thus, the panel of judges can consider and reflect on this case with a calm and clear mind, heart, and soul," he emphasized.

He believes that if the atmosphere remains filled with ash, dust, smoke, fog, and noise, it will be difficult to achieve justice through a calm and profound process of conscience.

"That is why, once again, I invite all parties to enter a period where we prioritize facts, reality, and objective logic," he said.

During the rebuttal or response of the public prosecutor to the defendant's plea, Tom noted that there were several new points highlighted or narrowed down by the prosecutor in their rebuttal document. He felt compelled to respond to it.

First, he felt that it was the first time he heard the prosecutor use the term 'the regulation does not provide space' in the context of raw sugar imports, rather than white sugar imports.

This raises the question of which legal principles apply to sugar imports. "Does the prosecutor mean that the importation of all types of sugar is permitted except for those that are prohibited? Or, is all sugar importation prohibited except for those that are allowed?" he stated.

He also quoted former Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Mahfud MD, who during a Hearing Meeting (RDP) at the Indonesian House of Representatives a few years ago, explained with an analogy that if there are no rules allowing him to go to the restroom now, but there are also no rules prohibiting it, then it is permissible. If it is not regulated, it means it is allowed.

That is why, once again, I invite all parties to now enter a period where we prioritize facts, reality, and objective logic.

He then compared it with other regulations where, in the absence of rules, provisions, or legislation that explicitly allow citizens to breathe, there are also no rules, provisions, or legislation that prohibit citizens from breathing. He questioned whether it is then necessary to enact a clause regarding citizens' breathing into the Law on Regulations and Provisions concerning Health, in order to provide a legal umbrella.

So, does the absence of regulations that explicitly permit the import of raw sugar mean that we are violating the law by importing raw sugar?

In addition, it is also to prevent the creation of legal issues in the future and to ensure that no citizens are arrested or implicated for breathing without regulations that permit or provide space for it.

"So, does the absence of regulations that explicitly allow the import of raw sugar mean that we are violating the law by importing raw sugar?" he questioned.

He also mentioned that the ruling in the case of the alleged corruption in sugar importation will have far-reaching consequences for legal certainty, business actors, and investors in Indonesia. Moreover, it affects the lives and cultural atmosphere of society in general, where some individuals are unable to enjoy freedom or are constantly haunted by the potential for criminalization by authorities.

In his rebuttal, the prosecutor was also deemed to have distorted facts, chronology, and reality. The testimony of the former Minister of State-Owned Enterprises in the Case Report (BAP) read in the trial without the presence of the witness stated that there were only two ways to maintain the stability of sugar prices and stocks, namely that state-owned enterprises directly import white sugar, or that state-owned enterprises collaborate with sugar-producing state-owned enterprises to import raw sugar to be processed into white sugar.

According to him, this has already been refuted by a video following the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Meeting (Rakortas) in 2016, which showed the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises inviting private sugar industries to collaborate with state-owned sugar industries to achieve the goals of stabilizing national sugar prices and stocks.

The minutes of the Ministerial Coordination Meeting dated May 12, 2015, state that imported sugar flooded the domestic market, thereby seeping into the consumer market. This has been refuted by the testimony of witness Rachmat Gobel, who stated during the hearing after being sworn in that during his tenure, he never issued any food import permits, including for sugar.

"That is a perfect illustration of why technical ministers must be able to disregard the Rakortas when reality does not reflect the discussions in the Rakortas," he explained.

In fact, the sugar stock continued to decline throughout 2015, and national sugar prices kept rising. This is a situation that would not be possible if the national sugar stock were abundant.

This has also been explained by various experts during the trial. A witness from the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs has stated in the hearing that the minutes of the Coordination Meeting of the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs dated May 12, 2025, were still in draft form and had not yet been officially signed by the Secretary of the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs at that time.

Meanwhile, the minutes of the ministerial-level economic coordination meeting in April 2016 regarding the mandatory 'impact assessment' on sugar imports, according to him, are quite clear. If read carefully and accurately, it indicates that the intended assessment pertains to the 381,000 tons of raw sugar imports that were proposed, not to the 1.3 million to 1.4 million tons of sugar imports that had already been agreed upon in the Economic Coordinating Minister's meeting on December 28, 2015. Imports will be carried out in the first six months of 2016.

Finally, the public prosecutor in their rebuttal was also considered to consistently highlight the witness statements that they acted under the direction of the leadership, which was interpreted as the direction of Tom Lembong, who was serving as the Minister of Trade at that time.

According to him, as a leader, he certainly provides guidance and approval to subordinates. A leader does not give direction or approval to the requests and reports of subordinates unless there is a strong reason to reject the requests or reports of subordinates.

However, the directive given is essentially for all ranks and employees to carry out all necessary steps in a timely manner, while always paying attention to and complying with the applicable regulations, provisions, and legislation. This is to support the government's policy regarding the importation, processing, and distribution of sugar in order to mitigate the fluctuations in prices and the national sugar stock that may occur if the country neglects its duties.

"I have never given instructions to subordinates to designate certain sugar producers, let alone to appoint specific distributors. Moreover, regarding how much sugar import allocation is given to whom," he said.

After the rebuttal was read, the Chief Judge of the Jakarta Corruption Court, Dennie Arsan Fatrika, announced that the next trial agenda had been set. "Therefore, the hearing for the verdict is scheduled for Friday, July 18, 2025," said Dennie.

He added that the panel of judges would articulate various considerations in the decision that would be read on that Friday. "It is the opportunity for the panel of judges to consider everything in the ruling," Dennie stated.