Nadiem’s Legal Defense Team: Audit of State Financial Loss Is Invalid, Prosecution Witness Lacks Integrity

Jakarta, January 21, 2026. In the continued hearing of the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebook laptops, the examination of witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor brought to light a number of material facts. These developments raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the witness testimony, the procurement review process, and the legal foundation underlying the calculation of state financial losses relied upon in this case. 

• During the hearing, three witnesses who are Echelon-level officials within the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology—namely Jumeri, Hamid Muhammad, and Sutanto—admitted to having received gratuities from parties linked to the procurement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) equipment. This disclosure raises fundamental concerns regarding the integrity and independence of their testimony, warranting careful scrutiny by the Panel of Judges. 

• The court also heard evidence relating to a meeting held on 27 May 2020, during which Poppy Dewi Puspitawati (Deputy Chair II of the Technical Team for the Analysis of ICT Learning Needs for Primary and Junior Secondary Schools for the 2020 Academic Year), acting as one of the meeting hosts, proposed that all 15 laptops under consideration be standardized as Chromebooks to simplify the tender process. She stated that retaining a mixed configuration of 14 Chromebooks and 1 Windows-based laptop could potentially be flagged as an irregularity during an audit. This proposal differed from the conclusions of an earlier meeting on 6 May 2020, which was attended by Nadiem, where the mixed configuration had still been agreed upon. These facts underscore that the decision to base the assessment entirely on Chromebooks was neither directed nor instructed by Nadiem. 

• The Legal Defense Team further drew attention to what it described as inconsistent legal treatment in the selection of operating systems. Three ministerial regulations issued in 2017, 2018, and 2020 governing the Physical Special Allocation Fund (DAK) for Education explicitly stipulated Windows as the required operating system and were never contested. In contrast, the inclusion of Chrome OS in the appendix to Ministerial Regulation No. 5 of 2021 has become the central issue in the case, without a proportionate or clearly articulated legal justification. 

• From an evidentiary standpoint, it is revealed that the audit report issued by Indonesia’s Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), which is being relied upon as the basis for calculating alleged state financial losses, was derived solely from examination records (BAP) and was not formally determined by the Supreme Audit Institution (BPK). Under the Indonesian Law No. 15 of 2006 regarding the Supreme Audit Institution (BPK), the institution is the only legally authorized to assess and officially determine state financial losses. 

In line with these findings, the Legal Defense Team emphasized that the selection of Chrome OS was conducted transparently and accountably through established internal governance mechanisms within the Ministry. The decision resulted from an administrative and technical process and was not based on any direct order or instruction from Nadiem. 

Dr. Dodi S. Abdulkadir, BSc., S.E., S.H., M.H., speaking on behalf of the legal defense team for Nadiem Makarim, stated “Without a formal determination by the Supreme Audit Institution, the BPKP audit lacks valid evidentiary standing. Moreover, the calculation of alleged state losses was conducted without involving our client or other relevant parties. For these reasons, we will further examine and challenge the audit findings before the Panel of Judges in the next hearings.” 

Another representative of the legal defense team, Dr. Ari Yusuf Amir, S.H., M.H., added “The admission by witnesses that they received gratuities raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of their testimony. Witnesses who have accepted gratuities cannot be considered independent, and their statements must therefore be treated with caution. We have formally presented this issue to the Panel of Judges as part of the evidentiary review in these proceedings.” 

Further official information and factual updates regarding the case are available at faktanadiem.org.