KPK Deputy Chairman, Chandra M. Hamzah, is examined by the police for alleged phone-tapping in the murder case of PT Putra Rajawali Banjaran Director, Nasrudin Zulkarnaen. The police are using it as evidence of Antasari’s involvement in the murder.
FATIGUE marked the face of Deputy Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Chandra M. Hamzah. Jakarta Metro Police examiners grilled him for seven hours on Friday two weeks ago. Chandra spoke very little to journalists bombarding him with questions following the examination. “Just ask the investigators,” he said.
The police quizzed Chandra as witness in the murder case of Director of PT Putra Rajawali Banjaran Nasrudin Zulkarnaen. This case came into the spotlight when Nasrudin was shot twice by an unidentified gunman at Modernland, Tangerang, on March 14. Two bullets hit the 41-year-old in the head. The next day, he died at the Army Central Hospital.
Two months later, the police unveiled the case. A suspect was finally seized at Tanjung Priok, North Jakarta. With this arrest, those behind Nasrudin’s killing were exposed. In this case the police declared nine suspects. Three of them were important persons: KPK Chairman (now suspended) Antasari Azhar, board member of PT Pers Indonesia Merdeka, Sigid Haryo Wibisono, and former South Jakarta Police Chief, Wiliardi Wizard.
In his further questioning, Antasari admitted he had known Nasrudin and Rhani Juliani—Nasrudin’s wife by ‘surreptitious’ marriage, who was working as a golf caddy. Accidentally, the three once met in Room 803 of the Grand Mahakam Hotel, South Jakarta, in May 2008.
During the examination, Chandra questioned about 30 points around the tapping of phone numbers of Nasrudin and Rhani. According to Tempo sources, when inquired, Chandra carried a bugging instruction he signed. At the time Chandra claimed the bugging had been ordered verbally by Antasari. Five numbers were to be tapped, two of which were used by Nasrudin and Rhani, the rest by Nasrudin’s golf friends. “The police discovered the bugging from the cellphone of Antasari,” said the sources.
Besides answering questions, Chandra delivered recordings to police investigators. “They were only about love,” added the sources. Chandra’s statements were then promptly confronted with Antasari.
According to Jakarta Police General Crime Detectives Director, Sr. Comr. Muhamad Iriawan, the examiners also questioned KPK Information & Data Director, Budi Ibrahim, and five information technology experts who conducted the bugging. From their descriptions, said Iriawan, Antasari was proven to have ordered the tapping.
Iriawan explained the bugging started in January 2009. After a month, the KPK found no indication of corruption in their talk. However, Antasari asked for further monitoring. After another month, the outcome remained nil. No conversation about corruption was found. The tapping was finally discontinued around early March.
Antasari’s attorney, Juniver Girsang, denied the charge that his client had ordered the tapping. He said Antasari had only asked for the detection of the numbers because they had frequently terrorized his wife, Ida Laksmiwati. “It was to find out the owners of the numbers,” said Juniver.
The request for detection, added Juniver, was due to Antasari’s suspicion that the numbers harassing his wife belonged to Nasrudin. “At that time the relations [between Antasari and Nasrudin] were unfavorable,” he added. But after being detected, the numbers were not owned by Nasrudin.
Juniver argued the bugging had nothing to do with his client, because Antasari was not authorized to do so. His client, continued Juniver, only asked for the detection of the numbers terrorizing his wife. “It’s not bugging,” he remarked. Moreover, he said, the procedure should be examined. “Could it be done by a verbal order?” he queried.
According to Iriawan, with this bugging, Antasari’s involvement in the murder of Nasrudin is more strongly indicated. “If there’s no connection, why was it tapped?” he said. But Iriawan refused to disclose the contents of the bugged conversation.
Chandra, who originally said the tapping had been ordered by Antasari, later corrected his information. He said the bugging was put forward by Antasari to KPK investigators in a meeting, where Chandra attended. Therefore, Chandra later made the instruction. However, this instruction carried only numbers without names. “Everything was as regulated,” added Chandra.
Iriawan brushed aside the denial. “It’s Chandra’s right,” he said. The obvious thing was the examiners’ findings that the bugging had clearly been ordered by Antasari. Iriawan indicated with the strong indication of Antasari’s involvement, the police planned to hand over the case dossiers to the prosecution next week.
A member of the House of Representatives Legal Commission, Gayus Lumbuun, described the tapping as an abuse of authority. “Terror is not within the domain of the crime of corruption,” he said. The KPK leader at the time should have distinguished between his duty and personal matters.
Nonetheless, Gayus added the mistake was not a grave violation. “It’s only a technical problem,” he notes. In his view, there was misinterpretation in exercising the KPK’s authority to bug. In this way, Gayus hoped the bugging issue should not be used as a weapon to weaken the KPK.
As for the authority abuse, Iriawan admitted he had not traced it yet. Furthermore, the provision applied to Antasari was still Article 340 of the Criminal Code concerning premeditated murder.
Since Antasari was named a murder suspect, the KPK’s position has often been questioned. The pros and cons of the authority and performance of this anticorruption commission without a leader are being debated. The DPR Legal Commission has even started a discourse on the necessity for the commission to postpone strategic decision-making before its leadership returns to normal.
This DPR view has invited strong reaction from various circles, particularly the four other KPK leaders, who see no problem with the suspension of the commission chief’s office. “Our system of leadership is collegial,” said Chandra. In his view, the post of chairman is only for ceremonial and protocol purposes.
Besides the debate over the “limping” commission, the issue of its “privileges” in handling cases of corruption is also raised. Law No. 30/2002 on the KPK in fact provides it with great authority. For instance, the KPK is allowed to conduct bugging and record conversations; take over the investigation of corruption cases handled by the police or the prosecution; and conduct confiscation with the permission of the presiding justice.
The challenge to the KPK is felt even more with the visit of personnel of the Finance Development Controller (BPKP) to the KPK a week after the police examined Chandra. The BPKP conducted an audit. “We will audit its performance and financial accountability,” said BPKP Chairman Didi Widayadi, on Thursday last week.
In the audit, the use of bugging devices was also examined. For this purpose, the BPKP cooperated with the Agency for the Assessment & Application of Technology and the Department of Communications & Information in auditing financial and non-financial technologies and techniques.
KPK Deputy Chairman Bibit Samad Riyanto said the commission’s performance was according to relevant rules. Especially regarding bugging instruments, Bibit explained the commission has a contract agreement with their maker. “We only know how to operate them,” he added.
Rini Kustiani, Ramidi, Cheta Nilawaty
.gif)