The alleged corruption investigation involving former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah has renewed public attention to the integrity of Indonesia’s law enforcement institutions. The case gained widespread attention after investigators from the National Police’s Corruption Crime Investigation Corps (Kortastipidkor) seized 74.01 kilograms of gold bars and hundreds of billions of rupiah in foreign currency from multiple locations. The scale of the seized assets has raised questions about institutional accountability within agencies responsible for combating corruption.
Commenting on the case, Professor Gabriel Lele of the Department of Public Policy and Management at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) said it reflects weaknesses in the institutional design of Indonesia’s law enforcement system. According to him, concentrating extensive authority in a single institution without adequate oversight creates opportunities for abuse of power.
“We are talking about an institution entrusted with combating corruption, yet it has itself become the center of a corruption case. When a single institution concentrates excessive authority without adequate oversight from other institutions, particularly from the public, people can abuse that authority very easily,” he said on Tuesday (July 21).
Professor Lele explained that institutions such as the Office of the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes exercise broad authority in handling major corruption cases. Such powers, he said, must be balanced by effective oversight through both interagency supervision and meaningful public participation.
“The principle of mutual oversight is essential. Oversight should not only come from other government institutions but must also ensure that the public has sufficient space to monitor the process,” he said.
Asked about the decision to leave the investigation under the Attorney General’s Office, Professor Lele said the arrangement could present both institutional and psychological challenges because the case involves a senior official from within the same institution.
“In my view, it could be described as a strategy to cool down the situation. However, it also places the Attorney General’s Office in a difficult position. How can it thoroughly resolve a case involving one of its own senior officials?” he said.
According to Professor Lele, such circumstances could undermine public confidence in the investigation. He argued that transferring the case to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) would better safeguard the independence of the legal process.
“The ideal solution would be to transfer the case to the KPK. If the Attorney General’s Office continues to handle it, there are psychological and institutional constraints, and I believe the public will have little confidence that investigators can thoroughly investigate the case,” he said.
Professor Lele also noted that major corruption cases often involve individuals with significant political and economic influence. Such practices, he said, tend to be systematic and supported by extensive networks, making them difficult to uncover if investigations focus only on individuals who become publicly visible.
“Large-scale corruption always involves elites with enormous power. One of its characteristics is that it is highly sophisticated and even institutionalized. It is difficult to trace what is actually happening unless conflicts emerge among the elites themselves,” he said.
“Who can uncover all of this? If investigators come solely from within the Attorney General’s Office, they already face difficulties in investigating their own superiors, let alone pursuing even more powerful figures behind the case,” he said.
He expressed hope that investigators would uncover the broader network behind the alleged corruption rather than focusing solely on individuals who come to public attention. In his view, anti-corruption efforts should address systemic problems rather than concentrating only on individual perpetrators.
Professor Lele added that the President, as head of state, should take steps to ensure the investigation proceeds independently and transparently. He suggested that transferring the case to the KPK could strengthen public confidence by ensuring a more impartial legal process.
“At the very least, in terms of independence, the public’s expectations are more likely to be fulfilled than if the case remains under the Attorney General’s Office,” he concluded.
Author: Agito Sitepu
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-Editor: Jasmine Ferdian
Photo: Magnific