Silmy Karim's Lawyer Says KPK's Suspect Designation Is Procedurally Flawed, Pretrial Becomes a Test of Investigators' Authority
Baca dalam 60 detik
- Kuasa hukum Silmy Karim menilai penetapan tersangka oleh KPK pada 3 Juni 2026 melanggar hukum acara karena diduga belum ada dua alat bukti yang sah.
- Sidang praperadilan di PN Jakarta Selatan juga menyoroti tidak adanya SPDP dalam berkas yang disodorkan KPK, hanya nota dinas.
- Jika praperadilan mengabulkan gugatan, status tersangka bisa batal dan tahanan harus dibebaskan, membuka jalan bagi gugatan praperadilan serupa.
The legal counsel for former Deputy Minister of Immigration and Corrections Silmy Karim, Agus Sudjatmoko, accused the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) of a procedural defect in naming his client a suspect. The argument was delivered after submitting conclusions in a pretrial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Friday (25/9/2026).
Agus questioned the timing of the suspect designation, which coincided with the issuance of an investigation order (sprindik) on 3 June 2026. According to him, criminal procedure law requires investigators to hold at least two pieces of evidence before someone is named a suspect. He doubted that requirement was met when the sprindik was signed, especially since Silmy only arrived at the KPK building at around 22.30 WIB that same day.
"Pretrial is a forum to test and correct investigators' actions that we believe amount to abuse of power, misuse of authority," Agus said.
Beyond the timing, Agus highlighted the relevance of the evidence presented by the KPK. He assessed that witness statements in the case dossier (BAP) were not directly related to the alleged crime attributed to Silmy. "If a witness statement concerns another party, not Mr. Silmy Karim, then it has no relevance," he said.
Just as crucial, Silmy's legal counsel claimed they did not find a Notification Letter on the Commencement of Investigation (SPDP) among the documentary evidence submitted by the KPK. "In yesterday's hearing, we found there was no SPDP. There was only an internal memo," he said. According to Agus, the SPDP is an obligation for investigators when starting an investigation and serves as a control so the process does not run wild.
If the pretrial later grants the petition, Agus hopes his client will be released from detention immediately. "If the suspect designation is invalid, then he must be released from detention. Only those with suspect status can be detained," he stressed.
Pretrial is indeed not an arena to try the merits of the case, but to test the validity of the investigation procedure. However, this case becomes a barometer of how disciplined the KPK is in obeying procedural law, especially amid public scrutiny of the anti-graft body's independence. For the business world, procedural certainty is a prerequisite for the investment climate. Uncertainty in procedural law can trigger investor concerns, particularly in sectors that intersect with immigration and corrections policy.
Silmy Karim is known as an official who steered several strategic policies, including the digitalization of immigration services and the restructuring of the corrections system. His case adds to the long list of public tests for the KPK in an era of transition. If the pretrial rules in Silmy's favor, a wave of similar lawsuits could emerge and force the KPK to tidy up its internal procedures. Conversely, if the KPK wins, this precedent could strengthen investigators' position in naming suspects in subsequent cases.
What the public awaits most is the ruling of the sole pretrial judge: whether the procedural defect argument is accepted, or the KPK can prove its procedure was compliant. The answer to that question will not only determine Silmy's fate, but also measure how sturdy the accountability wall of the anti-corruption body is in the eyes of citizens and the market.
