Tom Lembong Verdict Deemed Appropriate, Legal Expert Urges Public to Beware of Criminalization Narrative
Jakarta — The Jakarta Corruption Court’s ruling, sentencing former Trade Minister Thomas Trikasih Lembong to 4.5 years in prison, has sparked mixed public reactions. Amid wild narratives portraying him as a victim of criminalization, legal experts emphasize that this is purely a legal matter, not a political one.
Dr. Drs. Edi Saputra Hasibuan, S.H., M.H., Executive Director of the Indonesian Police Strategic Studies Institute (LEMKAPI), stated that the verdict against Tom Lembong was the result of a lengthy legal process that proceeded according to proper legal procedures.
“This is not a case that suddenly emerged. The process was long, starting from investigation, prosecution, and finally an open trial filled with legal evidence,” said Edi.
He stressed that claims of criminalization are unfounded and risk undermining public trust in the judicial system.
“Judges make decisions based on legal facts. If this is called criminalization, then where is the counter-evidence? Everything was conducted transparently and tested in court,” he noted.
Edi further urged the public to remain mature and objective in responding to the court’s decision.
“This is purely a legal issue. We must safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Public opinion must not be steered toward misleading narratives,” he added.
In the court’s ruling, presiding judge Alfis Setyawan stated that Tom Lembong had been negligent in granting import permits for raw crystal sugar (GKM) at a time when the national sugar supply was low and prices were high.
“Import decisions should not be made solely from an industrial perspective; they must also take into account their impact on the public and sugarcane farmers,” the judge said.
Additionally, Tom was found to have failed in properly supervising the market operations assigned to the Inkopkar cooperative.
Edi concluded by stressing the importance of maintaining public reasoning and not falling into misguided framing.
“Let’s not allow the substance of the case to be drowned out by baseless narratives. We must respect the legal process,” he concluded.
Tanya ChatGPT
