Difference between Yusril and KPK Appointment Processes
Monday, 19 February, 2007 | 15:12 WIB

TEMPO Interactive, Jakarta: The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is of the opinion that there is a basic difference between the direct appointment process carried out by the KPK and what was done by the Justice and Human Rights Department when Yusril Ihza Mahendra was in charge.

“KPK is brave enough to be responsible for this,” said Johan Budi, KPK spokesperson, yesterday (17/2).

On Thursday (15/2), the KPK asked Yusril for a tatement regarding the direct appointment of fingerprint detection devices worth Rp16 billion which he approved.

However, according to Presidentat Decision No. 80/2003 on the Government’s Goods and Service Procurement Procedure, any purchase above Rp50 million must be done through tender.

The following day, Yusril said that the KPK once made a direct appointment for tapping equipment procurement.

According to Johan, “Direct appointment isn’t always wrong.”

According to Article 17 in the President Decision No. 80, direct appointment is allowed when an auction is regarded inefficient and under certain circumstances.

In addition, in the tapping equipment case, the KPK had obtained the president’s approval signed by Yusril as the State Secretary in 2005.

The other difference, said Johan, was an allegation of funds mark-up and bribery amounting to Rp375 million in the Justice Department’s fingerprint identification project.

KPK’s opinion is supported by Rudy Satrio, legal expert, as according to him, not all direct appointments are legal violations.

In emergencies and urgent situations, Rudy explained, direct appointments for certain goods are actually possible.

“As long as there is no mark-up and the term is not manipulated,” he said.

Rini Kustiani and Imron Rosyid