Despite All Charges Being Refuted, the Prosecution Still Seeks A 27.5-Year Sentence Against Nadiem Makarim

Jakarta, 13 May 2026. At today’s sentencing hearing (13/05) against Nadiem Makarim, prosecutors sought a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rp1 billion to be paid within one month, failing which a subsidiary sentence of 190 days (approximately 6.5 months) of imprisonment shall apply. Additional penalties in the form of replacement payment amounting to Rp809 billion and Rp4.8 trillion, with a subsidiary sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment in the event that it is not paid. 

The Legal Defense team asserts that the prosecution’s demands are not supported by the facts established during trials or by legally admissible evidence as required under Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Throughout the proceedings: 

• No evidence was presented establishing criminal intent (mens rea) on the part of Nadiem Makarim to force or direct the Chromebook procurement 

• No evidence showed that Nadiem received or benefited from any alleged flow of funds

• No state financial losses were proven during trial 

• No evidence substantiated allegations of price mark-ups or inflated Chromebook procurement costs.

• No violations of procurement procedures were proven. 

Dodi S. Abdulkadir, a member of the Legal Defense team, stated that the prosecution’s indictments had failed to substantiate its charges during trial proceedings. “A legal system must be grounded in evidence and facts established in court, not assumptions. The legal facts presented during trial demonstrate that none of the charges have been proven. Accordingly, Nadiem should be acquitted of all charges,” he said. 

Meanwhile, Ari Yusuf Amir, a member of the Legal Defense team, emphasized that the case represents a critical test of the independence and objectivity of law enforcement in Indonesia. According to him, the ruling against Nadiem Makarim will serve as an indicator of whether the judicial process continues to uphold the principles of due process of law, the presumption of innocence, and fact-based adjudication. “All allegations have been rebutted through documentary evidence and witness testimony presented during trial. The forthcoming verdict will show whether the law is being enforced on the basis of courtroom facts and admissible evidence, or whether the principles of justice and objectivity are being disregarded,” Ari stated. 

If courtroom facts and admissible evidence no longer serve as the primary basis for judicial decisions, public trust in the law enforcement and judicial system will be increasingly at stake. 

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

*** 

Media Contact 

Communications Team of Nadiem Makarim’s Legal Defense Team 

E-mail: [email protected]