PRIME NEWS POST

MANDAILING NATAL, NORTH SUMATRA — The Special Examination (Riksus) into management of the Stunting Acceleration Reduction Program budget in Mandailing Natal Regency for Fiscal Year 2022–2023 has reportedly been completed.

However, the conclusion of the review has raised fresh public questions: what exactly was found? What recommendations were issued? And were any financial losses to the state identified?

North Sumatra youth figure and activist Misron Saidi, widely known as Ade Batubara, urged that the findings not remain an internal document but be publicly disclosed in full transparency. He also called on the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK RI) to conduct a comprehensive re‑audit of the approximately Rp103 billion stunting reduction budget.

“If the Special Audit is complete, the public has a right to ask: what were the findings? What are the recommendations? Were there any state losses? And have all recommendations been genuinely resolved on substance — not merely on paper?” he stated on 24 June.

According to circulating information, the Mandailing Natal Regency Inspectorate issued a letter dated 4 May 2026 stating the special audit had concluded and related regional agencies had taken follow‑up action. Detailed findings, however, remain undisclosed to the public.

Ade said clarity is essential to prevent speculation. A budget of Rp103 billion requires scrutiny beyond administrative completeness — it must cover planning, disbursement, implementation, budget realization, program outputs, beneficiaries, and actual impact on stunting prevalence.

“Do not just say the audit is finished. What matters is explaining what it found. If no irregularities exist, say so openly. If findings were made, explain what they are and how they are being addressed. If state losses are indicated, these must be processed through proper legal channels,” he said.

Read : Morowali Inspires the Redesign of a Neuro-Adaptive State in the Prabowo Era

Ade also called on BPK RI to conduct an independent, comprehensive re‑audit — including tracing fund flows and verifying whether allocated resources match activities actually implemented on the ground.

Additionally, he urged the North Sumatra High Prosecutor’s Office (Kejatisu) to further examine program management. This may include requesting clarification or re‑examining parties with authority over planning, coordination, implementation, oversight, and accountability — including the Mandailing Natal Regency Stunting Coordinator — where legally warranted.

“This is not about fault‑finding or accusing individuals. This concerns public funds. When the budget approaches Rp103 billion, accountability must be clear. The public should not be told only that an audit ended — without ever seeing what it found,” Ade stated.

He emphasized stunting interventions directly affect children’s health and future. Every rupiah must be accounted for and deliver tangible benefits.

He also questioned the meaning of “follow‑up completed” if only administrative matters were addressed — while substantive spending, program outcomes, and public benefit remain unreported.

“Oversight itself must be overseen. Once the Inspectorate reports findings, those conclusions must be verifiable through independent, authoritative review. The public should not be handed outcomes without seeing the evidence and reasoning behind them,” he insisted.

Ade expressed hope that BPK RI, the Inspectorate, and law enforcement will provide certainty based on verified data and documentation. If funds were used properly, publication will vindicate local government and answer public concerns.

“Rp103 billion is not a small sum. The public deserves to know how this money was spent, what results were achieved, and whether benefits truly reached communities. Release the findings — and conduct a full re‑audit where matters remain unresolved.”

Read : Heartbreaking: Oil Palm Farmers Evicted with Security Forces’ Involvement, Land Dispute in Central Kalimantan Triggers Injustice and Threatens People’s Livelihoods

Ade stressed his call reflects social oversight and concern for public financial governance — not a judgment of guilt.

“Any suspected irregularities must be proven through objective investigation and due legal process,” he concluded.