Contradictions in Court: Yaqut and Gus Alex Rebut Hilman Latief on Special Hajj Subdirectorate Appointment

JAKARTA — Two defendants in the alleged corruption case over additional hajj quotas, Yaqut Cholil Qoumas and Ishfah Abidal Azis alias Gus Alex, firmly rejected the testimony of the Director General of Hajj and Umrah Organization (PHU) at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Hilman Latief, regarding the appointment of Rizky Fisa Abadi as Subdirector of Licensing, Accreditation, and Development of Special Hajj Organization for the 2025–2026 period. The rebuttal was delivered during a hearing at the Corruption Crimes Court (Tipikor) at the Central Jakarta District Court, Friday (25/9) in the early hours.

Yaqut stressed he never gave directions to Gus Alex to place Rizky in that strategic position. "I reject Mr. Hilman's testimony related to 'Gus Alex bringing directions from me regarding Rizky's placement, because that never happened," said the former Minister of Religious Affairs for 2019–2024 before the panel of judges.

Echoing Yaqut, Ishfah instead threw another name into the vortex of the case. He said Rizky's placement was a request from someone named Wibowo Prasetyo, not an order from his superior. "I deny the witness's testimony stating that I proposed Rizky Fisa Abadi on the order of the Minister of Religious Affairs, because the truth is it was at the request of Wibowo Prasetyo," Ishfah asserted. He did not elaborate further on who Wibowo is and what his interest was in the appointment.

Previously, Hilman Latief testified that Rizky Fisa was placed in that position after his name was brought up by Ishfah. Hilman said he did not know Rizky, who came from another directorate general. Initially, Rizky was to be placed in the Umrah Development division, but because that division was facing heavy post-pandemic problems—with tens of thousands of pilgrims failing to depart in 2022—it was eventually agreed that he would fill the Special Hajj position. "Technically, it is only Echelon III level, Sir," Hilman answered when asked about the special requirements Rizky met.

When prosecutors asked who proposed Rizky, Hilman said he forgot for 2023 and surmised "maybe it was Mr. Alex who brought that name to me." The hesitant answer prompted an intervention from Chief Judge Ni Kadek Susantiani, who asked the witness not to use the word "maybe." The debate briefly heated up in the courtroom. KPK prosecutors also presented the former Head of the Hajj Affairs Office (KUH) at the Indonesian Consulate General in Jeddah, Nasrullah Jasam, as a supporting witness.

"I do not know the person concerned. At that time he was to be placed in Umrah Development if I am not mistaken, at that time the umrah problem was at its heaviest, at its most difficult." — Hilman Latief, Director General of PHU at the Ministry of Religious Affairs

The differing versions between the defendants and the witness are a test for KPK investigators. In legal construction, the appointment of an echelon III official within the Ministry of Religious Affairs should go through a competency test mechanism and the approval of authorized officials. If there was indeed intervention from outside parties—whether Wibowo Prasetyo or a ministerial special staffer—then the practice could potentially violate the meritocracy principle and open a gap for conflict of interest. Moreover, the position of Subdirector of Special Hajj has the authority to regulate PIHK licensing and accreditation, which is worth billions of rupiah.

The case has also dragged in the Operational Director of Maktour, Ismail Adham, and the Chairman of the Kesthuri Association, Asrul Azis Taba, as defendants. It is alleged that 313 PIHK received unlawful profits from the arrangement of additional hajj quotas in 2023–2024. The figure for state losses cited by BPK RI reaches Rp622.09 billion—a significant amount amid the need to improve hajj and umrah services.

For the Indonesian public, this trial is not merely a legal drama involving officials. The hajj quota is a matter of livelihood for hundreds of thousands of prospective pilgrims who must wait for years. If its management is tainted by rent-seeking practices, the impact is directly felt in costs, access, and fairness of the queue. The public has the right to demand full transparency over every decision on the placement of officials who handle permits and quotas.

Going forward, the panel of judges is required to be sharp in sorting out the contradictory testimonies. Will the KPK summon Wibowo Prasetyo to test Ishfah's claim? And just as important, can this trial reveal who actually enjoyed the flow of the Rp622 billion in funds? The public awaits the answers, not merely a war of rebuttals in the courtroom.