Nadiem’s Preliminary Objection Rejected, Judge Orders Prosecutors to Submit Evidence on State Loss Calculation

Nadiem’s Legal Team will attend the Evidentiary Hearing upon submission of audit evidence by Prosecutors

Jakarta, 12 January 2026. Nadiem Makarim’s Legal Team expressed regret over the Panel of Judges’ decision to reject Nadiem Makarim’s preliminary objection, which challenged the legal sufficiency of the indictment, including alleged elements of self-enrichment, the calculation of state financial losses, and the linkage between Google’s investment in Gojek and Chromebook procurement. Nevertheless, they respect the court’s decision and welcome the Judges' order requiring Public Prosecutors to submit evidence in the form of audit results on the alleged state financial loss, despite Public Prosecutors’ objection on the grounds of concern that the audit findings could be misused outside the courtroom. 

Dr. Dodi S. Abdulkadir, BSc., S.E., S.H., M.H., stated, “The audit-based evidence calculating the alleged state financial loss is the very issue that we have questioned from the start. From the time our client was detained until now, such evidence has never been presented. It is crucial to establish a factual record and ensure that the evidentiary process proceeds objectively.” 

The Legal Team also emphasized that the allegation of ‘self-enrichment amounting to IDR 809 billion’ is legally unfounded and devoid of factual basis. The amount in question does not constitute state funds and was never transferred to Nadiem’s personal accounts. It was purely internal transactions among Gojek-affiliated companies and bears no relation to the Chromebook procurement or Google’s investment. All such transactions were properly documented, traceable, and remain verifiable through GoTo’s corporate data, and therefore do not satisfy the legal elements required to establish personal enrichment under applicable law. 

These facts are further corroborated by Google’s official statement issued in its corporate blog, which explicitly confirms that there was no quid pro quo arrangement or any correlation between Google’s investment and government procurement contracts. Accordingly, the narrative of “political payback” and the alleged flow of funds to Nadiem is without factual or legal foundation. 

Dr. Ari Yusuf Amir, S.H., M.H., a member of the Legal Team expressed his disappointment and questioned the restrictions placed on their client’s ability to address the public. “We strongly object to the limitations imposed on our client’s right to provide an explanation in the public sphere. Such restrictions are against the fundamental principles of justice and human rights. Amid the rapid spread of accusations and growing public opinions, our client has been denied a meaningful opportunity to offer clarification, which may shape a one-sided public opinion before all facts are properly examined in court.”