Court Rejects Antasari’s Request for New Testimony

Court Rejects Antasari’s Request for New Testimony

During a bid for a case review of his 2010 murder conviction, former antigraft czar Antasari Azhar said he would need a number of witnesses, including prosecutors from his original trial, to be present during the review.

“The prosecutors who appear can be anyone who handled my case, including Cirus Sinaga,” Antasari said.

“We need to clarify whether all the evidence was presented during on the trial or not.”

Cirus is on trial for obstruction of justice and abuse of power that led to the acquittal of tax official Gayus Tambunan.

Cirus started Antasari’s October 2009 trial by stating that the motive for the murder of businessman Nasrudin Zulkarnaen was an affair between Antasari and Nasrudin’s wife, golf caddy Rani Juliana.

Nasrudin alledgedly caught the pair together in a hotel room.

But presiding judge Aminal Umam said the request could not be carried out because the witnesses could not be interrogated again after a case was closed.

Speaking at the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday, Antasari also said he wanted hospital medical staff members, a forensic doctor and a former subordinate to testify for him.

“In order to present our new evidence, we need to have several witnesses, such as medical staff from Mayapada Hospital, a doctor from Gatot Subroto Hospital, the information analyst Ina Susanti from [the Corruption Eradication Commission] and also the prosecutors,” Antasari said.

“We need the court’s help to make them appear because it has the authority to do so.”

The medical workers at Mayapada Hospital were the first to treat Nasrudin shortly after he was gunned down by two men in Tangerang in March 2009.

He was later moved to Gatot Subroto Hopsital, where he died and the autopsy of his body was performed.

“We want the court to subpoena the medical workers from Mayapada Hospital who were on duty from noon to 6 p.m. on March 14, 2009, when Nasrudin arrived at the hospital. It is difficult for us to get them to reply to us on our own,” Antasari told the court.

“We need to know who received Nasrudin’s body, who took off his clothes and to whom the clothes were handed.”

Antasari said the presence of the doctor from Gatot Subroto Hospital was also important to his case because his lawyers needed more details on which medical procedures were performed on Nasrudin.

Moreover, Antasari also asked the court to present Ina Susanti, his former employee at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), to present wire-tapped phone conversations related to the case.

Prosecutor Eri Yudianto said the case review request should be rejected because Antasari had failed to present new evidence as required by the law.

In an earlier hearing, Antasari’s lawyers claimed a case review was needed because they were in possession of several pieces of new evidence relating to Nasrudin’s car, the bullets from the shooting and text messages.

“We reject the new pieces of evidence. They are not new because they were examined previously,” the prosecutor said.

The case review is Antasari’s last chance to have his 18-year jail sentence overturned.

Truth Remains Elusive for Brother of Slain Nasrudin

Truth Remains Elusive for Brother of Slain Nasrudin

Andi Syamsudin thought he knew who killed his brother.

But now Andi, the younger brother of slain businessman Nasrudin Zulkarnaen, doesn’t know what to believe.

In an interview with the Jakarta Globe on Thursday, Andi said he doubted that Antasari Azhar, the former antigraft czar convicted of murdering Nasrudin, actually committed the crime, which prosecutors said was motivated by a love triangle involving golf caddy Rani Juliani, who was Nasrudin’s third wife, Nasrudin himself and Antasari.

“I tried to see and understand the relations between my brother, Antasari and the motive of the murder. I found it odd that Antasari, as the chairman of the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission), would do such a thing just because of a woman,” he said. “It made no sense to me.”

Andi, who once denounced the court for giving Antasari a “lenient sentence,” said he had tried everything he could to reveal the truth.

“I visited Antasari in Tangerang Prison for an explanation of why he would kill my brother. He provided me an explanation. He even told me about his friendship with my brother,” he said.

“But later when I wanted an explanation from Rani, I had no access to her because she was under the police protection and I would need a special permit from the police chief to meet her.

“It makes me wonder who Rani really is. Why is she so special? What happened exactly? If it was about security or safety reasons, why couldn’t the police set up a meeting themselves?”

Andi said it would be naive to link the murder to a love triangle involving a woman whose marital status with Nasrudin was unclear.

“Other than that, when I asked doctors to take action to save my brother, they told me they could not do anything without the family’s permission. But once I was in Jakarta, my brother had his hair shaved,” Andi said, recalling moments after the murder in March 2009.

“All that has made me wonder, what happened exactly?”

Andi says he now thinks the murder was engineered by people who disliked Antasari’s cracking down on major graft cases while leading the KPK.

“I believe some people wanted to get rid of Antasari because he prosecuted many big corruption cases, such as the information technology equipment procurement at KPU [General Elections Commission],” he said.

One question, however, remains unanswered.

“Why my brother? If Nasrudin has no relation with Antasari, would he be murdered? If Antasari wasn’t the KPK chairman, would this have happened?”

Andi said he was upset at the lack of support in helping him find the real perpetrators.

“It seems nobody wants to stand with us to find the true actor. I wonder if it is also part of the plan in which the real actor tried to keep everybody from supporting us so the truth would never be uncovered,” he said.

For Andi, unless the Indonesian justice system is totally reformed and a new government comes into power, reaching the truth seems unlikely.

“We have seen that even the Judicial Commission’s recommendation has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Should we expect something more from them? I doubt it,” he said.

The Judicial Commission had asked the top court to suspend three district court judges who took part in Antasari’s trial over suspicions of unprofessional conduct in the case, but instead of granting the request, the Supreme Court promoted the trio.

“If you asked me whether I am afraid to investigate this case or not, I would say yes,” Andi said. “But I threw my fear away because I want to know the truth. If it was not me as Nasrudin’s brother, who else will do it?”

Antasari Begins Bid for New Trial

Antasari Begins Bid for New Trial

Antasari Azhar, the anticorruption czar turned murder convict, attended the first hearing on Tuesday of his demand for a case review in the slaying of businessman Nasrudin Zulkarnaen, with the victim’s family providing their endorsement.

Antasari, the former chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2010 for Nasrudin’s murder in what prosecutors described as a love triangle turned deadly.

Nasrudin’s younger brother, Andi Syamsudin, told reporters at the South Jakarta District Court that the findings of the Judicial Commission (KY) in the case pointed to the innocence of the former KPK head.

The judicial watchdog said in April that the judges in Antasari’s trial had been negligent by failing to consider the testimony of several experts and witnesses in arriving at their verdict.

“I have a lot of confidence that Antasari will be found not guilty because the KY recommendations mentioned that the panel of judges who presided over the trial were found to have ignored critical evidence in the case,” Andi said.

He said he hoped the judges would “appreciate” the new evidence and approve the case review. If the district court approves the review, it goes to the Supreme Court, and Andi said he hoped the judges there would acquit Antasari.

“If Antasari is released, I hope he will help us investigate and find the real culprit behind my brother’s murder,” he said. Andi added that the family, including his brother’s widow and children, had never accepted that a love triangle had been behind the murder.

“My wife and I have been assisting with this case because we cannot accept the fact that Nasrudin was killed,” Andi said.

Maqdir Ismail, Antasari’s lawyer, has said that six new pieces of evidence, relating to Nasrudin’s car, the bullets from the shooting and text messages, would be presented. He said none of the evidence had been presented at previous trials.

Outside the court, Antasari said he and Nasrudin’s family were eager to uncover the truth behind the murder.

“Even though I have been detained for three years, I carry no grudge because I knew this was the risk of my job,” he said. “If I was not the antigraft chief at the time, dealing with many corruption cases, would I have faced this thing? Do I look like a murderer?”

Antasari said his lawyers had submitted new evidence to the National Police related to a threatening text message he is alleged to have sent Nasrudin.

“In the previous trial, I was accused of sending a text message threat to Nasrudin, but that was not true,” he said. “There was an actor, who used my number to threaten other people, but I cannot elaborate right now because the investigation has to be carried out properly and we will present witnesses and evidence.”

Nasrudin was shot multiple times in March 2009 by a group of men on motorcycles while sitting in his car after leaving a golf club in Tangerang. He died in the hospital a day later.

Former Antigraft Chief’s Lawyers Request Review of Murder Conviction

Former Antigraft Chief’s Lawyers Request Review of Murder Conviction

The legal team of former antigraft czar Antasari Azhar filed on Monday for a case review of his murder conviction, citing flawed legal reasoning by the judges and overlooked evidence.

Maqdir Ismail, a lawyer for the former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman — who was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2010 for the murder of businessman Nasrudin Zulkarnaen — said there were several issues raised at the trial at the South Jakarta District Court that subsequent appeal courts had failed to properly examine.

Maqdir raised the issue of the threatening text messages reportedly sent by Antasari to Nasrudin. An IT expert testified that Antasari never sent the messages, as alleged by prosecutors, but the judges concluded that he had, based on testimony from three people who claimed to have read the messages. The messages could not be accessed or read during the trial.

Maqdir voiced concerns about the conviction of Antasari for “participation in encouraging others” to carry out the murder, reportedly over a love triangle involving a female golf caddie.

“A conviction based on such a finding is unacceptable because the terminology ‘participation in encouraging’ is not recognized in the Criminal Code and cannot be used to convict a defendant,” the lawyer said.

The terminology for accessory to murder is “participation in a sinister conspiracy” to kill.

Maqdir said another key point was the court’s failure to oblige prosecutors to present the police reports on Nasrudin’s clothes and car during the trial.

“It was important because we could have used them to find out about the range from which the victim was shot. If it was at close range, then there would have been gunpowder on his car and clothes,” he said.

Maqdir also said that the trajectory of the bullet shot into Nasrudin’s head was not the same as the trajectory of the bullets fired into the car.

“This needs to be investigated,” he said, adding that testimony from a ballistics expert indicating that the weapon was broken and could not have been used was also overlooked by the judges.

The Judicial Commission has previously highlighted indications that the three judges trying the case may have willfully overlooked key evidence, and it has since called for them to face a six-month suspension and ethics tribunal. The Supreme Court has refused to act, though, arguing the judges are protected by judicial immunity.