Seeing the Protests of Experts Whose Names were Quoted by the Prabowo-Sandiaga Team
By: Ismail) *
Although not yet able to excel from Paslon Petahana Joko Widodo, the BPN camp still seems to be trying to file a lawsuit so that it can always prove that the 2019 election is full of fraud, but it seems that many parties object to the lawsuit submitted by the 02 camp.
Chairperson of the Constitution and Democracy (KoDe) Initiative, Veri Junaidi assessed that the evidence submitted by Prabowo’s Legal Team – Sandiaga was not strong enough. Because the evidence submitted at most is in the form of news links and does not strengthen the argument of structured, systematic and massive election violations (TSM). One of the cited is the opinion of Veri and Bivitri in a news link.
“Of course this is where the challenge is to prove the argument both qualitatively that there is a violation or not, but also prove a TSM proposition. In my opinion it is not enough to only use news – media coverage and build framing that this election is not fair and democratic. stronghold 02 to prove it, “said Veri.
Nevertheless Veri acknowledged the truth of the theory compiled by the Prabowo Law team – Sandiaga was quite capable. However, to prove the existence of TSM violations, of course requires sufficient evidence, such as a warrant to win certain candidates who are run in a structured manner.
He also considered that Prabowo’s Sandiaga camp had to prove whether there was a violation that affected the election results or not. Veri said that Prabowo’s Sandiaga camp claimed victory over the 01 camp, but did not show evidence of how they were superior
“Unfortunately from all the arguments that indeed from the beginning they said that the results of the KPU were a difference of 16 million and they claimed to be greater than 01, their version. But how this victory happened, unfortunately there was a discontinuation of the argument which was later built by the attorney 02, “he said.
Supposedly if the Prabowo-Sandiaga camp claimed to win 10 percent, it would be appropriate for them to also prove that the 10 percent data they got from where and where the error was. That is what must be proven first, only later will there be a violation that will be delivered TSM.
Meanwhile, the argument for the 02 stronghold about disqualifying Ma’ruf amin is not logical, because Posis Ma’ruf Amin is not a commissioner or employee, but as a sharia supervisory board of Islamic banks that does not violate the provisions.
Bivitri said that he did not agree with such accusations “I do not agree with that. Subsidiaries are not state-owned enterprises. The sharia supervisory board is not a commissioner. It was placed together with a legal consultant and public accounting firm, such as the law firm-rich advisor hired by the sharia delivery board.
Just to note, that opinions / opinions from bivitri were also quoted by Prabowo’s legal team – Sandiaga.
Things were getting worse when Prabowo and Sandiaga said that the Jokowi government was in the style of a new Neo-Order. To justify this, Prabowo’s Law team also quoted a doctoral candidate from the Australian National Universtiy named Tom Power.
On page 76 of his lawsuit, the Prabowo – Sandiaga team represented by his attorney cited Tom’s opinion regarding politics in Indonesia. In his lawsuit, Prabowo wrote that Tom highlighted the law in Indonesia used by the Joko Widodo government to attack and weaken political opponents and the re-emergence of dual military functions.
“This is for Tom some of the characteristics of the new order authority adopted by the Joko Widodo government,” wrote the couple’s legal counsel 02.
From the research, the legal counsel 02 then indirectly concluded that the characteristics of the new order greatly allowed the 01 pair to cheat to win the 2019 election.
But in fact, Tom has revealed that the article cited by the Prabowo-Sandiaga camp is a research and published in the 2018 BIES journal article.
“But they use this article in an incomplete context,” he said.
He also objected if the article he wrote at the time did not mention and indicate indications of election fraud that took place in April, because the article was written 6 months ago before the democratic party took place.
The objections of the experts quoted by the Prabowo-Sandiaga team added a long list of controversial 02 efforts to win the 2019 presidential election. The list included claims of Prabowo-Sandiaga’s change, only bringing news links to prove the presidential election fraud, and questioning KH. Ma’ruf Amin’s status. With this series of irregularities, do the public still believe in their claim of victory?
) * The author is a sociopolitical observer