Expert: Febrie Adriansyah's detention valid despite signature issue

The detention of Febrie Adriansyah, a former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes, remains legally sound even without the signature of the Director of Investigation, according to an expert witness. Suparji Ahmad, a law professor at Al-Azhar University Indonesia, testified in a pre-trial hearing that the arrest warrant and subsequent detention were valid.

“

The expert believes, returning to KUHAP 90 clearly, that the person concerned is an investigator, so when they sign the determination of a suspect or other coercive measures, it is legally valid.

Suparji based his opinion on Article 90 of Indonesia's Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). He explained that the article grants investigators the authority to designate individuals as suspects and to impose coercive measures, including detention and seizure of assets. The arrest warrant for Febrie was signed by an investigator named Zet Todung Allo, which Suparji affirmed is legally sufficient.

Febrie's legal team is contesting his detention, arguing that the arrest warrant issued by the Attorney General's Office is invalid. They are seeking its cancellation and a declaration that it holds no legal power. The legal team specifically challenged the arrest warrant number PRIN-43/F/Fd.2/07/2026, dated July 24, 2026.

“

To the best of the expert's knowledge, one source of authority is attributive, authority that arises from legal provisions. Article 90 gives investigators the authority to determine suspects and carry out other coercive measures, including detention or seizure.

Furthermore, the expert argued that the investigation order (sprindik) itself is not an object of a pre-trial hearing. He described it as an administrative document initiating the investigation process, not a coercive measure. Therefore, he stated, the sprindik cannot be tested in a pre-trial hearing to assess the legality of an investigator's actions, as long as those actions comply with regulations and do not violate human rights.

“

The investigation order is not part of the object of a pre-trial hearing, what constitutes the object of a pre-trial hearing includes coercive measures and testing the validity of the cessation of investigation, cessation of prosecution, compensation, rehabilitation, then undue delay, postponement of case handling without clear legal reason.