Although not yet in prison, Let’s Trust Completely on Law Enforcement Process on Ahok case
The day has been just 13 days after the “Aksi Bela Islam Jilid II” (ABI II) which demanding that legal proceedings against non-active Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok should be rolling, the police decided that Ahok indeed deserve to be a suspect in a case of defamation against Surah Al- Maidah verse 51. Thus, the legal process can be proceed until the judicial investigation stage. However, the status of “suspect” ascribed to Ahok didn’t make him have to be directed to crouch behind the cell bars. The police decided that despite its status as a suspect, the police do not have to commit against Ahok.
That decision then emerges question mark in some quarters, especially those who “Blind” on the mechanisms of law enforcement in Indonesia. In order to avoid unnecessary polemics, The Chief of National Police General Tito Karnavian immediately said the considerations behind the decision of the police that does not arrrest Ahok. According to the National Police, to conduct such arrest it needs anchoring objective and subjective terms. Objective requierement is an absolute decision to judge a criminal case. In “The Case of Ahok”, investigators got split decision so it is not absolute. It is automatically about objective requirements to hold Ahok.
In addition to objective requirements, there is also subjective requirement embodied in three specific points. First, the detention can be done when there is concern the suspect would fled. In this case, the police are sure Ahok will not do so, given the cooperative behavior of Ahok in through the review process. In addition, the police also have preventive action by way of preventing Ahok to not traveling abroad. The second point is the concern the suspect would destroy evidence. In this case, evidence in the form of video is already in the hands of the police, making it impossible for Ahok to eliminate the evidence. Meanwhile, the third point of the subjective requirement is a repeat offender concerns actions. Of course, in this case the police are confident that Ahok will no longer do so.
Clarification of the police regarding to the why they do not arresting of Ahok can be accepted widely. For example, Deputy Secretary General of MUI, Tengku Zulkarnain, explained that MUI gives the legal process of Ahok fully devolved to the police. According to Zulkarnain, whether Ahok is detained or not, is duly authorized by the police. This is because since Indonesia got its freedom, ulama fully devolved the criminal law matters to the state. In other words, MUI fully believe that the police have taken the decision with objective and measurable.
The attitude of MUI who accept the decision of the police is a role model who rightly emulated by all Muslims. Although disappointed to sacrilege committed by Ahok, MUI still prioritize attitude to obey a legal process that has prevailed in the country. This is because MUI believes that the police indeed will be objective and trustworthy in completing “The Case of Ahok”. Therefore, all Indonesian Muslims, especially those who had joined the National Movement Defenders of MUI’s Fatwa (GNPF MUI) “must” obey and follow the example of the attitude of MUI in response to the results of Ahok’s case. There is no need for polemics. Quite pray and entrust law enforcement authorities to complete the “Case Ahok” fairest in accordance with applicable law.
