PRIME NEWS POST 

The INDONESIAN (Jakarta)— AMPUH Indonesia has expressed deep concern and presented a critical legal perspective regarding the naming of Hery Susanto as a suspect in an alleged corruption case concerning nickel mining governance by the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia.

This case cannot be viewed as an ordinary legal event. More than just individual prosecution, this matter represents a serious test for the independence of state institutions, the integrity of law enforcement, and the sustainability of the principle of the supremacy of law in Indonesia.

Based on a written statement delivered by prominent lawyer Joni Sudarso, S.H., M.H., CPLA, in his capacity as Chairman of AMPUH INDONESIA, it was emphasized that the handling of this case must be framed within the context of upholding the dignity of the law, rather than merely procedural enforcement. He stressed that every legal process must uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and be free from conflicts of interest that could potentially compromise justice.

As part of its moral responsibility and public advocacy, AMPUH INDONESIA deems it necessary to present the chronology, legal analysis, and strategic recommendations to all elements of the nation, including legal experts, academics, and the wider public.

Brief Chronology of the Case (2013–2026)

This case stems from an administrative dispute between PT TSHI and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) regarding Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) obligations in the nickel mining sector in Southeast Sulawesi.

Based on investigation findings:

– 2013–2025: PT TSHI faced high PNBP burdens and allegedly engineered public reports to trigger administrative intervention.
– Before 2021: Hery Susanto allegedly established communication with the company’s parties and agreed to intervene in the examination process at the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia.
– Modus Operandi: Intervention was carried out by manipulating the Final Examination Report (LHAP), allowing the company to calculate its PNBP obligations independently, causing state losses amounting to billions of rupiah.
– Gratification: Alleged flow of funds totaling Rp1.5 billion received in installments.
– April 10, 2026: Hery Susanto was inaugurated as Chairman of the Ombudsman RI for the 2026–2031 period.
– April 15–16, 2026: The Attorney General’s Office conducted searches, arrests, and named him a suspect.

Hery Susanto is charged under the provisions of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, facing a potential penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of Rp1 billion.

Why is This Case So Critical?

The Ombudsman RI is an independent state institution as regulated in Law No. 37 of 2008, functioning to oversee maladministration practices in public services.

A major irony arises when the supervisory institution itself is caught in the vortex of alleged legal violations. The designation of a high-ranking Ombudsman official as a suspect, particularly just days after his inauguration, raises serious questions, including:

1. Is this legal process purely about law enforcement?
2. Or is there a potential for conflict of interest and politicization of the law?

This situation is increasingly sensitive considering that the Ombudsman has previously been active in supervising various law enforcement institutions, including the Attorney General’s Office.

AMPUH INDONESIA views this case as a “double-edged sword” in law enforcement:

1. Risk of Conflict of Interest: The potential clash between the Ombudsman’s supervisory function and the prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General’s Office must be seriously anticipated.
2. Indications of Systemic Corruption: Allegations of manipulation in PNBP management indicate weak oversight in the natural resources sector.
3. Threat to Democracy and Citizen Rights: Weakening the Ombudsman potentially reduces public access to report maladministration independently.

To safeguard public trust and national legal integrity, we urge:

– Total Transparency: The Attorney General’s Office must openly disclose the case construct, including evidence, witnesses, and fund flows.
– Independent Oversight: The House of Representatives (DPR RI) and relevant institutions need to conduct audits and supervision of the legal process to prevent abuse of power.
– Institutional Reform of the Ombudsman: There is a need to strengthen the selection system and protect the independence of the institution’s leadership.
– Fair and Open Judicial Process: The legal process must uphold the principles of a fair trial, free from political pressure or specific interests.

Increased Public Participation

The public is encouraged to remain active in monitoring public services as part of the checks and balances mechanism.

This case also serves as a loud alarm for the direction of legal reform in Indonesia. Law enforcement must not become an instrument of power, but must stand firm as an instrument of justice for all people.

AMPUH INDONESIA invites all elements of the nation—media, academics, civil society, and the parliament—to jointly monitor this process critically and objectively. Ultimately, the Law must side with the truth, not with interests.

#@Reported from various media sources //photo from Google documents // contribution by Prime News Post international online media // news.paper
Related News.t(Editor)