Legal Defense Team: Prosecutors’ Witnesses Present Opinions, Not Facts

All witnesses lack technical expertise and five never interacted with Nadiem

Jakarta, January 19th, 2026. Court hearing on the alleged corruption case concerning the selection of Chromebooks involving Nadiem Anwar Makarim continued today with witness examination. The Public Prosecutor submitted evidentiary materials at the very start of the hearing, including the Finance and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) audit report that forms the basis for the alleged state loss calculation. This action contravened with Panel of Judges’ order , which explicitly required all evidence to be submitted to Nadiem and his Legal Defense Team prior to the hearing. In the opening session, the Legal Defense Team stated that this situation violated the principle of a fair trial and undermines the defendant’s right to an effective defense. 

The Legal Defense Team also highlighted that the seven witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor did not meet the substantive requirements to provide technical assessments or testimony relevant to this matter. 

No Witness Has Qualifications as an IT Expert 

Of the seven witnesses, Jumeri, Hamid Muhammad, Sutanto, Purwadi Sutanto, Muhammad Hasbi, Poppy Dewi Puspitawati, and Khamim, not a single one has a background or expertise in information technology (IT). They lack the capacity to explain Chromebooks’ technical aspects such as: 

• Downloading and using applications other than those pre-installed on Chromebook devices 

• Operating Chromebooks without an internet connection 

• Other technical features frequently cited in the indictment. 

Their lack of capacity demonstrated that their testimonies are merely personal opinions. 

Most Witnesses Never Interacted with Nadiem 

Five of the seven witnesses never interacted with Nadiem at all, whether in the context of receiving instructions, discussing policy direction, or technical coordination. Their testimony is derived solely from third parties, not information they directly heard or experienced firsthand. 

Dr. Dodi S. Abdulkadir, BSc., S.E., S.H., M.H., representing Nadiem Makarim’s Legal Defense Team, stated, “The indisputable fact is this: none of the witnesses presented possesses expertise in information technology. Therefore, their opinions regarding Chromebook’s technical capabilities are not facts, but personal assumptions that cannot be objectively accounted for. Personal assumptions cannot be used as the basis for constructing legal accusations.” 

“In criminal law, what is being tested are facts not third parties stories whose truth cannot be verified. When a witness did not experience, see, or directly hear anything from the accused, such testimony falls into the category of personal opinion, not facts nor admissible evidence,” added Dr. Ari Yusuf Amir, S.H., M.H. from the Legal Defense Team. 

The Legal Defense Team underscores that every legal process must rest on facts, expertise, and legally valid testimony. Opinions, assumptions, and assessments without competence must not replace the principle of due process of law or a fair legal process. 

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