JAKARTA – The 4.5-year prison sentence handed down to Thomas Lembong, former Minister of Trade, in the 2015–2016 sugar import corruption case, has drawn significant public attention. While the ruling has sparked both support and criticism, it is widely regarded as a reflection of judicial independence and cannot be classified as criminalization.
On social media, discussion surrounding Lembong has been intense, especially after the keywords “Tom Lembong” and the hashtag #VonisTanpaIntervensi (“Verdict Without Intervention”) began trending. While many users have expressed sympathy for Lembong, others strongly support the court’s decisive stance, viewing the decision as evidence that the legal process was conducted impartially.
Dr. Edi Hasibuan, Chairman of the Indonesian Association of Law and Criminology Lecturers, asserted that the verdict against Lembong cannot be linked to any form of criminalization. He emphasized that the ruling was based solely on legal facts presented during trial.
“There was no indication of interference in the court proceedings. The judge rendered the decision based on valid evidence and witness testimony,” Dr. Edi Hasibuan affirmed.
He added that the judicial system operated in accordance with the principles of justice, demonstrating that high-ranking positions do not guarantee immunity from the law.
“Although Lembong did not directly receive any financial gain, his strategic role and responsibility in the import policy caused significant losses to the state,” Dr. Edi continued.
While some argue that the verdict may have overlooked Lembong’s intentions and contributions during his tenure, the judge’s decision is believed to have remained grounded in the principles of positive law. The issue of criminalization is considered irrelevant, as the case went through a transparent legal process—from investigation, prosecution, to courtroom evidence.
Many academics and legal practitioners see this verdict as a reaffirmation of the ongoing enforcement of the rule of law. In a democratic state, justice is not determined by one’s position, but by accountability for policies and actions.
The legal proceedings against Lembong are expected to serve as a crucial reminder that clean governance must be upheld by a fair, transparent legal system free from political pressure. (^)
