[Kabar-indonesia] 2: Tempo Cover Story: Hamid Should Have Been Indicted: Dimara [+Opinion]

[JoyoNews at aol.com]

3 Tempo Magazine Cover Story Reports (2 of 2): 

- Daan Dimara: Hamid should have been indicted 

- Hamid Awaludin: I didn't do anything wrong 

- Opinion: Court Tales 

Tempo Magazine
No. 48/VI
August 01 - 07, 2006 

Cover Story 

Daan Dimara: Hamid should have been indicted 

WHEN he does not have to be in court, Daan Dimara spends most of his time 
reading newspapers. Currently detained at the Jakarta Metropolitan Police 
Headquarters since last February, 62-year-old Dimara diligently monitors the 
development of the case that involves him. The former member of the General Elections 
Commission (KPU) is being tried in the corruption case of ballot seals during 
the 2004 presidential elections. 

He hopes that the corruption case at the KPU will be investigated thoroughly. 
"I say this because I see favoritism being practiced," said the lecturer at 
Cenderawasih University. Dimara also admits to getting some pressure when his 
testimony puts Hamid Awaludin, his former colleague at the KPU, now Justice & 
Human Rights Minister, into a corner. 

Tempo reporter Maria Hasugian interviewed Dimara, who hails from Biak in 
Papua, last Thursday. Excerpts: 

Before the trial at the Corruption Court in Central Jakarta last Tuesday, you 
met with Hamid Awaludin. What did you two talk about? 

Before the trial began, Hamid came to the room where I was being held. I was 
there, together with my lawyers, Erick S. Paat and Pablo Christallo. He hugged 
me and asked about my condition, then asked me to come to the room reserved 
for witnesses. He said he was worried about me and wanted to economically help 
my family. I thanked him for his consideration. I replied that he need not 
help me because I still received my salary from Cenderawasih University. My wife 
also gets a salary of her own.

Then I said, that if he really wanted to help, he should help all of the KPU 
colleagues being detained there. When I was about to leave the room, he said 
one more time, "I ask for one thing, tell your lawyer he must no make 
statements that put me in a corner. If this goes on, it would be like leading towards 
personal issues…"

So, what was your response? 

I said that I would convey the message to my lawyer, Erick S. Paat. After 
that I went back to the room reserved for the accused and told Pak Erick the 
message. Then I called my wife, who said, "Don't accept Hamid's offer. You've been 
shamed like that. We have our pride, we have our salary." My daughter also 
heard that and she asked 
me to reject Hamid's offer.

How did Erick react? 

In court, he asked Hamid about the offer. But the judge overruled the 
question because he thought it deviated from the context of the trial.

Did you regard Hamid's statement as a threat? 

Yes. Before that, I and Pak Erick had received a few telephone threats. I 
once got a call about 9pm. The voice on the other side warned me not to say 
anything that would impact on Pak Hamid. I changed my telephone number soon after 
that.

During the investigation, did you often get threats? 

After the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) ended their investigation 
of myself, I explained to reporters that Hamid was responsible for the 
execution of first and second presidential elections. Then, the following day, about 
8am, Hamid called me up. He said, "Meneer (Sir, in Dutch-Ed.), why is my name 
being dragged in?" I replied, "Since you became minister, you've been 
forgetful." Then I hung up.

You once said that many facts about this case remain unexposed. 

Yes, like the time Hamid led the meeting on June 14, 2004. Five witnesses 
verified that he led the meeting. Shouldn't that be seen as official evidence? 
They haven't confronted us with this. I was confronted with it, but not 
connected with that meeting, but on the statement over the price of the ballot seals. 
The other fact is that Hamid received a letter from PT Royal Standard, but he 
never admitted to receiving it. This is a knotted string that must be 
presented gradually. Hamid also received money amounting to US$30 million and Rp12 
million, just like myself. Why hasn't the KPK detained him? Is it because he is 
now in the inner circle of power? (With regards to the money, Hamid denied it 
and said he never received it-Ed.).

What should Hamid's status be? 

If we use the KPK criteria to indict someone, Hamid would certainly qualify 
as a suspect in the corruption case. The criteria involves the authorities, 
disturbing public peace, and causing losses to the state, in the amount of at 
least Rp1 billion.

But the KPK investigator said that there was not enough evidence to indict 
Hamid. 

Five witnesses verified the fact that Hamid led the June 14 meeting. In my 
view, those five witnesses goes beyond the truth sought by the panel of judges 
and the prosecutor. That's why I asked the judges to confront the five 
witnesses with Hamid. 
Otherwise, I and my lawyer will walk out. 
 
---------------------------------------

Tempo Magazine 
No. 48/VI
August 01 - 07, 2006 

Cover Story 

Hamid Awaludin: I didn't do anything wrong 

TWO weeks ago on Tuesday, following a plenary session which enacted the Law 
on Witness & Victim Protection at the parliament (DPR) building at Senayan, 
Minister Hamid Awaludin suddenly blacked out. His cholesterol and blood pressure 
levels had soared. "Everything became dark and I collapsed," said Hamid. After 
a two-hour treatment at the DPR clinic, Hamid was allowed to go home. 

The collapse of Hamid, a former journalist who spent years studying law in 
the United States, may have been linked to the news about the corruption scandal 
involving ballot seals during the 2004 presidential elections, which is 
currently being tried at the Corruption Court. The accused in the case, Daan 
Dimara, a former colleague of Hamid at the General Elections Commission (KPU), has 
accused him of being involved. "I am not used to being in a situation like 
this," he said. 

Last Saturday, to Tempo reporters Wenseslaus Manggut, Arif Kuswardono and 
Wahyu Dhyatmika, Hamid explained the details of the charges, including the one on 
the bribery attempt and threatening Daan's lawyer. Excerpts: 

You are said to have led the meeting that determined the price of the ballot 
seals. 

That is not true. Even when that meeting took place is a contention among the 
witnesses. Daan Dimara said June 13, Bakri Asnuri said June 12. So I don't 
know the meeting they mean. 

But five people have testified to that effect. 

It's like this. If I and two bodyguards outside agreed that we saw you hit 
me, how would that be? Yet, there is no proof.

Are you accusing the witnesses of committing perjury? 

I didn't say that. I never felt we spoke about prices. If we met and sat 
together, that could have been the case. The fact is, if there was an official 
meeting, there would have been notes of the meeting, a list of attendees.

KPU Chairman Nazaruddin Syamsuddin admitted that many of the meetings at the 
KPU were not officially recorded. 

There could have been meetings without official notes. That's possible. But 
with decision-making meetings, that's not likely. This meeting (the charges 
against Hamid -- Ed.) was a meeting where a decision took place. To determine a 
price. It's unlikely that there would be no official notes on it. 

Do you deny having determined the price of ballot seals? 

Who determined the Rp99 price? That is in the document signed by Sentot 
Marzuki (KPU consultant). All documents regarding the price offer, price 
negotiation and even the report to KPU's finance bureau, were signed by Daan Dimara as 
head of the committee to procure ballot seals.

According to witnesses, all the documents were fake because they were 
predated. 

That's not my business. I just want to say that if meetings where no 
decisions were taken had official notes, why is it that the meeting I am charged with 
had no documentation?

Daan Dimara accused you of offering money to his family. 

My God. Why has it come to this? That is not true. What happened was, when we 
met before the trial, I greeted him and hugged him. His lawyer was present. 
He said: "Can we have a meeting by ourselves?" When we were alone inside the 
witnesses' room, Daan said: "This is my situation now, Pak Hamid." I asked about 
his family, and I continued to say: "Meneer Daan, if there is anything I can 
do for your family outside, please let me know according to my ability." So 
now I ask you, is that a statement intending to bribe? That was a courtesy.

You are also accused of threatening Daan Dimara's lawyer, Erick Paat. 

At the end of the meeting, I said: "Pak Daan, as a friend, can I ask for 
help." He said I could. I said: "Tell your lawyer, not to put me in a corner in 
the newspapers. Just be professional, be logical. If they continue to treat me 
that way, let there be no impression that this was personal." I didn't do 
anything. Why did they say I made threats?

They say you will be reported to the Indonesian Lawyers Association. 

I will not fight it. My media friends already have taken sides, they have 
already judged me. How can I fight the media? I will accept anything. 
 
----------------------------------------

Tempo Magazine
No. 48/VI
August 01 - 07, 2006 

Opinion 

Court Tales 

LACK of resolution is an enemy in the fight to eradicate corruption. Being 
selective in battling corruption, an approach the press often refers to as 
"selective weeding" is like chemotherapy that is given haphazardly. The cancer 
eating away at state coffers remains uncured. 

But this half-hearted approach seems to be repeated. In handling the BNI 
embezzlement case, only a few of the police officers allegedly involved were taken 
to court. The senior officers strongly suspected of abetting remain 
untouched. This unfair treatment reappeared in the case involving the bribery attempt 
of a Supreme Court judge. Only the junior officials of this body were brought 
to trial. The court was not even able to summon the Chief Justice to testify. 
The judges who insisted on his presence were themselves being investigated by 
the supervisory judges. 

Another example to be added to this list is the corruption case over the 
procurement of ballot seals for the 2004 presidential election. Former General 
Elections Commission (KPU) member Daan Dimara is a suspect. He was the head of 
the committee to procure these seals, as was KPU partner Untung Sastrawijaya, 
from PT Royal Standard, which produced the seals. Brought before the Central 
Jakarta Corruption Court, they were charged with overpricing the seals, hence 
resulting in losses to the state in the amount of Rp3.5 billion. In addition, the 
procurement process was not put out to tender, but was made by direct 
appointment. 

A controversy was sparked because Hamid Awaludin, Daan's colleague at the 
KPU, has yet to be arrested, despite clear indications that the man who is now 
the Minister for Justice & Human Rights was involved. Five people have now 
testified before the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). They all said that 
Hamid was present at the June 14, 2004 meeting with the Royal Standard boss, 
when the price of the seals was set. Three of them have already testified in 
court, and their accounts have not changed. One of them even said that Hamid was 
not only present, he actually chaired the meeting. 

Hamid finally agreed to testify after being summoned three times. But his 
testimony was exactly the same as his previous testimony to the KPK. He said that 
he had not attended the meeting, let alone been involved in setting the price 
for the ballot seals. 

This means there are two versions regarding Hamid's attendance at the June 
14, 2004 meeting. Five witnesses testified that Hamid was present, while Hamid 
insists he was absent from the meeting. All the witnesses spoke under oath in 
court. Not everyone can be correct; someone must be lying. The judge can charge 
whoever is lying with committing perjury, a crime that carries a maximum 
penalty of nine years in jail. The police and the prosecution need to determine 
the veracity of the testimonies given by witnesses as well as that of Minister 
Hamid, so the court case doesn't end in a mistrial. 

These conflicting testimonies would not have arisen had the KPK been quicker 
in its investigation of the key facts. There was the letter from Royal 
Standard containing a price offer that was sent to Hamid before the company was 
appointed to produce the seals. If there was anything suspicious in the testimonies 
heard in court, the KPK could have immediately declared Hamid a suspect. In 
order to gather evidence, the KPK could have executed searches or bugged 
telephones. It could have even asked the President to suspend the minister if his 
position complicated the process of an investigation. 

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla do not need 
to defend Hamid to the death. No one in his right mind will applaud if an 
innocent minister goes to jail. And even if he is found guilty, we should pity 
him. Suspending a minister, even though he is only suspected of corruption, 
would show that the government is serious about cleaning itself up. This would be 
a good report card in the eyes of the public. 

In this way, the seeming lack of resolve in upholding the law can be avoided. 
A half-hearted approach will give the impression that the government is not 
serious in implementing the Anti-Corruption Law. The government will also be 
judged as lacking seriousness in applying Law No. 28/1999 on Administering a 
Nation Clean and Free of Corruption. 

Resolute action could start with following through cases that are already in 
the public eye, like this one involving the embezzlement of ballot seals. If 
the government continues to be inconsistent, the question that will always be 
asked is, who lied in court? Daan, five witnesses, or Minister Hamid? 
 
-End 2 of 2-

------------------------------------------
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------