JAKARTA, LITERASIHUKUM.COM — The Attorney General has withdrawn Head of the Karo District Attorney Danke Rajagukguk, Head of Special Crimes Section, as well as the public prosecutors handling the case of the videographer Amsal Christy Sitepu to Jakarta to undergo clarification and internal examination. This step was taken after the handling of Amsal's case triggered a national polemic and drew sharp criticism from the public and the DPR.

Head of the Attorney General's Office Legal Information Center Anang Supriatna confirmed that the ranks of the Karo District Attorney's Office had been “pulled” to the Attorney General's Office. He stated that they were secured by an intelligence team on Saturday night, April 4, 2026, to then be clarified and examined by the Attorney General's Office internal team regarding the professionalism of handling the Amsal case.

The internal investigation followed pressure from Commission III of the House of Representatives

This step by the Attorney General's Office comes just a few days after Commission III of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia requested The Junior Attorney General for Supervision (Jamwas) conducted a thorough evaluation of the Karo District Attorney's Office ranks. In a hearing on April 2, 2026, Commission III also requested that the evaluation results be submitted in writing to the DPR within one month.

The DPR's spotlight is inseparable from the way the Karo District Attorney's Office handled the Amsal Sitepu case, a videographer who was initially implicated in a suspected corruption case involving the making of village profile videos in Karo Regency, but was later acquitted by the Medan District Court on April 1, 2026In that decision, the panel of judges stated that Amsal was not proven legally and convincingly to have committed a crime as charged by the prosecutor, and then restored his rights, position, dignity, and honor.

The controversy grew larger after the prosecutor's letter was questioned.

One of the most highlighted points of contention was the difference in terms in the letter regarding Amsal's detention status. In a meeting with Commission III, Danke Rajagukguk admitted that there was an error in the prosecutor's letter which used the term “transfer of detention”, whereas what the court meant was “suspension of detention”. This admission reinforces the criticism that the administrative handling of Amsal's case was carried out carelessly in a case that was already very sensitive in the public eye.

Therefore, the internal investigation by the Attorney General's Office is now not just a regular administrative follow-up. This case has developed into a test for the prosecutor's institution: whether the handling of Amsal's case was indeed carried out professionally and proportionally, or whether it contains serious errors in the way the prosecutor built the case, carried out procedures, and communicated to the public. For now, the Attorney General's Office has not conveyed the results of the clarification or examination, and there has been no official statement from Danke Rajagukguk or his staff.