PRIME NEWS POST
The INDONESIAN , (Jakarta)– Statements by Gatot Nurmantyo suggesting that President Prabowo Subianto could be the next target following the case involving former Jampidsus Febrie Adriansyah represent a dangerous political construct.
In this narrative, Gatot seeks to instill the belief that the Police Corruption Eradication Task Force (Kortas Tipikor) is an instrument of Joko Widodo (Jokowi) that can be manipulated to undermine Prabowo.
The core flaw in this view lies in a logical leap that links three separate matters without evidence: the establishment of Kortas Tipikor during Jokowi’s tenure, legal action against Febrie, and the claim that the unit can be steered to frame the President himself as corrupt.
Objectively, Gatot’s narrative amounts to a divisive operation targeting three parties at once: it casts the Police as a political weapon, paints Jokowi as a shadow ruler, and positions Prabowo as a head of state powerless over his own security forces.
Though ostensibly defending Prabowo, Gatot’s remarks actually diminish the President’s authority by claiming “Prabowo means nothing.” This is an open insinuation that presidential power is hollow and that the police force lies beyond the control of the legitimate government.
Prabowo is being baited to view the Police as a “Trojan horse” left behind by Jokowi—a perception that could ultimately fracture relations between the President and law enforcement institutions.
Gatot also creates the false impression that bodies established under one president forever remain the personal property of that individual.
Legally, Presidential Regulation No. 122 of 2024 explicitly places Kortas Tipikor under the command chain of the Police Chief and the sitting administration, rather than as a personal organization belonging to a former head of state. Signing an establishing regulation never grants perpetual political ownership rights.
If Gatot claims that Jokowi still exercises control after leaving office, such assertion must be proven with concrete evidence—ranging from chains of command to actual communications—not merely assumed because the unit was formed during an earlier administration.
Moreover, these allegations are dangerous because they distort the very meaning of law enforcement. Investigators’ success in uncovering the Febrie case is twisted into an illustration of a threat against Prabowo, as if investigators can freely fabricate evidence and intrude upon Kertanegara (the Presidential Palace).
This narrative risks creating a chilling effect that discourages law enforcers from acting decisively against senior officials for fear of political repercussions.
President Prabowo must therefore not fall prey to this provocation. Oversight of law enforcement institutions should indeed be strengthened, but never based on the unfounded prejudice that the Police serve as a covert tool of other interests—so that cohesion between the head of state and his law enforcement agencies remains intact.
(Editor)
