Nadiem Trial Raises More Questions as Two More Prosecution Witnesses Admit Receiving Money

So far, 5 of the 10 prosecution witnesses have acknowledged receiving gratuities of significant value, with three of them having been reported to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) by Nadiem Makarim’s Legal Defense Team.

Jakarta, January 27, 2026. While Nadiem Makarim, who was entirely not involved but has been named a suspect, five of the ten prosecution witnesses who have testified and admitted to receiving and retaining high-value gratuities over many years remain free. 

During the Monday hearing (26 January), two prosecution witnesses, Purwadi Sutanto (former Director of Senior High Schools) and Muhammad Hasbi (former Director of Early Childhood Education), openly admitted to receiving gratuities that were not returned until years later, following the exposure of the case and their examination by the Prosecutor’s Office. 

Purwadi admitted to receiving USD7,000 in 2021 from Dhani Hamidan Khoir, a Commitment-Making Officer (PPK), reportedly as a “token of appreciation” from a Chromebook procurement supplier. The money was never reported to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) within the statutory reporting deadline. 

In addition, Hasbi also acknowledged receiving a sum of money from PT Bhinneka Mentari Dimensi in the same year. Although he was serving as an Echelon II government official, Hasbi claimed he was unaware of the gratuity reporting requirements and kept the funds for several years before returning them. 

Article 12C of Law No. 20 of 2001 explicitly requires that any receipt of gratuities be reported to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) no later than 30 working days from the date of receipt. Failure to report within this timeframe carries potential criminal consequences for the recipient. 

At a previous hearing on 19 January, three witnesses presented by the prosecution (Jumeri, Hamid Muhammad, Sutanto) acknowledged receiving gratuities valued at hundreds of millions of rupiah each, and all three have since been reported to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) by Nadiem Makarim’s Legal Defense Team.

Representing the defense team, Dr. Dodi S. Abdulkadir, BSc., S.E., S.H., M.H., said: “The facts revealed in today’s hearing underscore the illogical nature of this case: those who received gratuities and retained them for years have not been sanctioned, while Nadiem, who received nothing whatsoever, has been named a suspect.” 

“The witnesses’ admissions that the gratuities were only returned years later further confirm the recipients’ own breach of their legal obligations. In this context, it is legally irrelevant to shift responsibility to another party, namely Nadiem, who neither received, knew of, nor instructed such acts,” said Dr. Ari Yusuf Amir, S.H., M.H., from the Legal Defense Team. 

Visit faktanadiem.org for official information and the latest facts regarding this case.