PRIME NEWS POST 

The INDONESIAN , (Jakarta)– The Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung)’s clarification confirming that former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah remains a suspect stands as the clearest confirmation that findings from the Corruption Eradication Task Force (Kortastipidkor) of the Indonesian National Police (Polri) carry legal weight that cannot be erased simply because case authority has transferred between institutions.

Kejagung has publicly stated that Febrie’s suspect status remains valid based on the earlier designation issued by Polri investigators.

This establishes that when Polri acts to open sensitive cases, conduct investigations, gather evidence, and name suspects, all that work cannot be reset merely by issuing new administrative investigative orders.

The clarification also dispels impressions that transferring case jurisdiction could revert a suspect to witness status without clear legal justification.

Previously, Kejagung issued three investigative orders after receiving case files and evidence from police investigators. In initial reporting, both Febrie Adriansyah and Don Ritto were listed as witnesses, a position the Head of Kejagung Legal Information Center had earlier confirmed.

Hours later, that statement was revised, and Kejagung affirmed the two remain suspects under Polri’s designation.

This sequence demonstrates that legal status established through Polri’s investigation cannot be eliminated solely by a change in the institution leading the case.

For Polri, this development represents a critical institutional recognition. Suspect designations issued by Kortastipidkor carry binding legal consequences.

Kejagung itself has now adopted those designations as the basis for confirming Febrie’s status. In short, Polri’s investigative work stands firm, and its outcomes must be respected by the institution now carrying proceedings forward.

It would be unjust if Polri’s courage in uncovering this case were overshadowed by polemics over jurisdiction transfer.

The very fact that Kejagung had to revise its statement shows that the foundation of Febrie’s suspect status rests on the resolve and investigative work of Polri’s Kortastipidkor.

The implications extend far beyond status alone. If Polri’s suspect designations are formally recognized, so too must the continuity of evidence, exhibits, witness statements, transaction trails, search and seizure records, and all other findings that form the legal structure of the case be strictly upheld.

There must be no situation where Polri’s suspect designations are maintained publicly, while the case framework, strength of evidence, or investigative direction quietly shifts after control changes hands.

Public oversight must now intensify to ensure every finding secured by Polri investigators retains full administrative standing, evidence custody, and accountability through to trial.

Kejagung noted the three new orders relate to alleged corruption and money laundering at PT Krakatau, corruption in power plant projects, and corruption linked to Asabri. It also stated that investigations will continue in synergy and collaboration with Polri and the KPK, particularly through supervision.

This commitment must translate into tangible action. Polri must not be reduced to a body that hands over files and evidence only to lose access to developments in a case it built.

Collaboration means ensuring investigative continuity, protecting all prior work, and establishing mechanisms to guarantee no facts, evidence, or legal arguments vanish along the way.

The Febrie case now stands as a major test of the state’s consistency in anti-corruption efforts. Polri has demonstrated resolve by proceeding against a former senior official within the law enforcement community itself.

When such a case transfers to an institution where the suspect once held a strategic post, standards of transparency and accountability must be raised exponentially.

The clarification on suspect status serves as an early warning: even minor miscommunication in cases like this can spark deep public suspicion.

The state must eliminate any room for doubt that transferring jurisdiction is not a means to soften status, alter the legal framework, or weaken the case built by Polri.

Kejagung’s clarification should be read positively for Polri, while also serving as a reminder to all law enforcement bodies.

For Polri, it is positive because Kejagung explicitly acknowledges Febrie’s status derives from the designation issued by Kortastipidkor.

For law enforcement, it is a reminder that this recognition must be followed by unwavering progress in the investigation.

Suspect status must not remain an administrative label. All alleged offenses must be proven; fund flows traced; asset origins explained; all implicated parties questioned regardless of rank; and all evidence preserved for open examination in court.

The public should also accord Polri its due recognition. Judging a case is easy once facts emerge. It is far harder to be the first institution brave enough to open an investigation touching on power, vast sums, and figures holding strategic positions within the legal system.

Whatever institutional dynamics follow, the record must not be rewritten to erase the fact that Polri’s Kortastipidkor was the first to advance this case to the point of formal suspect designation—recognition now confirmed by Kejagung.

Accordingly, the government, DPR, KPK, and civil society must ensure that while jurisdiction may transfer, Polri’s courage in uncovering the case does not result in its weakening.

Kejagung’s clarification has affirmed Polri’s suspect designations stand. The next step is to ensure the evidence and legal framework supporting them also stand firm until tested before a judge.

The state must avoid irony: that Polri found the courage to open the case, name suspects, and enter sensitive territory—only for confusion over the suspect’s status to emerge once control changes hands.

Kejagung’s clarification must mark the end of that confusion. From this point, there can be no turning back. If Febrie remains a suspect because of Polri’s designation, the state is duty-bound to move the investigation forward toward proof and trial, not back to square one.

Polri has taken the hardest step: daring to open the door. The state must now ensure that door is not closed from within.

Reported from various media sources //photo from Google documents // contribution by Prime News Post international online media // news.paper
Related News