Ex-Defense Official Claims Indictment Legally Flawed in Satellite Case

Former Head of the Defense Facilities Agency at the Ministry of Defense, Leonardi, asserts that the prosecutor's indictment in the alleged corruption case of a satellite project is legally flawed and inconsistent with the charges. Leonardi presented his defense, known as a "pledoi," at the High Military Court II in Jakarta.

“

I was only following the orders of my superior, Minister of Defense Ryamizard Ryacudu, as the budget user. That I am the only one accused of carrying out this program, as if it were my own initiative and desire.

He expressed surprise at being the sole government official named a suspect. Leonardi stated he was merely executing orders from his superior, then-Minister of Defense Ryamizard Ryacudu, who was the budget user. He questioned why he alone is accused of implementing the program as if it were his personal initiative.

“

A minister cannot stop a project without another limited cabinet meeting. In the 2016 and 2017 period, we tried to ask the President to hold another meeting, whether this program should be stopped or not. But there was no order until I retired.

Leonardi also highlighted the prosecution's shift in legal basis, arguing it fundamentally violates the principle of legality and due process. His legal counsel pointed out that the change in articles was not reflected in initial investigation orders or the indictment. Furthermore, they contested the increase in the alleged state loss from Rp306.8 billion to Rp349.4 billion, deeming it an "actual loss" calculation that changes over time is legally unsound.

“

Therefore, the criminal indictment in question should be declared invalid and cannot be used as a basis for imposing a sentence on the defendant.

Additionally, Leonardi objected to the state loss calculation being based on an audit by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), which he and his counsel argue is not authorized for such calculations, citing a Constitutional Court ruling.

“

If the alleged loss value continues to change, increase, and swell simply due to the passage of time, then legally that value cannot be qualified as actual loss.