Legal Literacy - The panel of judges at the Central Jakarta District Court has rejected the objections filed by two defendants in the election criminal trial that took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The two defendants are former members of the Kuala Lumpur Overseas Election Committee (PPLN).

Rejection of Defendant's Objections and Commencement of Evidence

This rejection of objections marks the beginning of the evidentiary process against all seven defendants in the case.

The seven defendants in this case are:

  1. Umar Faruk (Chairman of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)
  2. Tita Oktavia Cahya Rahayu (member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)
  3. Dicky Saputra (member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)
  4. Aprijon (member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)
  5. Puji Sumarsono (member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)
  6. A Khalil (member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)
  7. Masduki Khamdan Muchamad (former member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur)

The first six defendants are currently inactive, while Masduki is no longer a member of PPLN Kuala Lumpur.

Rejection of Defendant's Exception and Order to Continue the Case Process

The defendants in the Kuala Lumpur election criminal case are charged with two articles:

Two defendants, Aprijon and Masduki, filed exceptions or objections to the indictment.

On March 14, 2024, at the Central Jakarta District Court, the Panel of Judges, chaired by Chief Judge Buyung Dwikora, rejected the exceptions of the two defendants.

Considerations of the Judge's Decision

The Panel of Judges ordered the public prosecutor to continue the case with the evidentiary process.

In its considerations, the Panel of Judges rejected the exceptions filed by Aprijon and Masduki for several reasons:

1. Incomplete Address

Objections regarding incomplete addresses in the indictment are considered still tolerable. According to the Panel of Judges, the most important thing is to ensure that the defendant does not experience difficulties or confusion in conducting a defense at trial.

2. Indictment Deemed to be a Copy

Objections stating that the first and second indictments only copied the contents of the law were also rejected. The Panel of Judges argued that there were fundamental differences between the two indictments if read in their entirety and carefully.

Judges' Views on Violations and Defendant's Objections

The Panel of Judges disagreed with the defendant's legal counsel who stated that the violations that occurred in Kuala Lumpur were administrative violations, not election crimes. According to the Panel of Judges, this is part of the main case and is not included in the exception.

Other objections filed by the two defendants were also considered to be part of the main case and were dismissed by the Panel of Judges.

Determination of Witness Examination and Verdict

The Panel of Judges decided to immediately conduct examinations of witnesses in stages. The public prosecutor has prepared 19 witnesses, who will be presented directly in the courtroom and online.

The plan is for this election crime trial to be decided before the recapitulation results regarding the type of violation.

  • The defendant's objection was dismissed because it was part of the main case.
  • The examination of witnesses will be conducted soon.
  • The trial is scheduled to conclude before the announcement of the 2024 General Election national recapitulation.