JakartaPost-May 16
A recent wave of judge transfers by the Supreme Court following bribery scandals has been seen as a modest effort to improve the country’s judicial system, according to observers who cast doubt on whether the measure is sufficient to prevent corruption and strengthen judicial integrity. Last week, the Supreme Court reassigned 41 judges in district and high courts across the country. The decision was announced on May 9 by the court’s Chief Justice Sunarto, who said in the announcement video urging all court personnel to “avoid transactional services and uphold integrity to work better”. Among the names included in the transfer list was Judge Eko Aryanto, who was transferred to the West Papua High Court from his initial position at the Jakarta Corruption Court. Eko previously made headlines for presiding over the trial of businessman Harvey Moeis in a corruption case involving state-owned tin miner PT Timah. The panel of judges sentenced Harvey to 6.5 years behind bars after it found him guilty of personal enrichment and money laundering in one of the largest graft cases in the country’s history. The punishment prompted a public uproar as many observers said it was unduly lenient compared with the Rp 332.6 trillion (US$20 billion) total state losses incurred by the corruption. But the Supreme Court later denied that the transfer had anything to do with Harvey’s case. The latest wave of transfers was the third round of reassignments this year. The first one in March involved 86 judges, while the second one, affecting 199 judges, was announced in April after the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) arrested four judges in a bribery case. AGO investigators arrested four judges formerly assigned to the Jakarta Corruption Court who handled a corruption case pertaining to crude palm oil (CPO) exports. The judges allegedly accepted a total of Rp 60 billion in bribes from lawyers representing palm oil companies to clear the firms implicated in the case of all charges. Supreme Court spokesperson Sobandi said on May 10 that the court ordered the reassignment for “personnel refreshment, coaching and supervision across all levels of the judiciary”. Read more at:
