Jakarta – Professor Suparji Ahmad, a Professor of Law at Al Azhar University Indonesia (UAI), believes that the return of the Order to Commence Investigation (SPDP) in the case of alleged extortion by former KPK Chairman Firli Bahuri against Syahrul Yasin Limpo (SYL) by the research prosecutor at the DKI Jakarta High Prosecutor’s Office indicates the failure of the Metro Jaya Police investigators to meet the prosecutor’s instructions in completing the evidence in the Firli Bahuri case file.
Therefore, Prof. Supardji suggested that the PMJ investigators issue a SP3 for the Firli Bahuri case, as it does not meet the material evidence requirements.
“If indeed no evidence is found or there is insufficient evidence, the consequence is that this case will be terminated,” he said to reporters in Jakarta, Saturday (4/1/2025).
Prof. Supardji explained that there are three reasons for the issuance of SP3, namely insufficient evidence, not a criminal event, or the investigation being terminated by law due to expiration or the suspect’s death.
“In the case of Firli Bahuri, if there is not enough evidence, then the consequence is that this case must be stopped,” he asserted.
According to him, the DKI Jakarta High Prosecutor’s Office returned the SPDP to the PMJ investigator because there was no follow-up on the previous instructions.Therefore, the Prosecutor does not want to be burdened by this case.
In addition, Prof. Supardji also considers the return of the SPDP by the Prosecutor’s Office to the investigator to indicate a delay in complying with the Prosecutor’s instructions.
“If there is no evidence, the Prosecutor will have difficulties.” Because the prosecutor will be responsible in the trial. If the Prosecutor cannot prove it in court, this becomes a battle for their reputation. Moreover, this contradicts the sense of justice,” explained Prof. Supardji.
Regarding evidence, Prof. Supardji stated that the legal process in investigations and trials is a construction of facts based on evidence supported by physical evidence.
He emphasized that in the legal process, facts cannot be fabricated, but only reconstructed. Therefore, facts cannot be imaginative or assumptive, but must align with the actual reality.
“To establish a material fact, it must be based on quality evidence or evidence that is consistent with the criminal event,” he stated.
Leave a Reply