•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

The Constitutional Court began hearing a judicial review on Friday on the thorny issue of whether a protected witness can be prosecuted while he or she is giving valuable evidence to the state.

The review of the 2006 Law on Witness Protection was filed for by whistle-blower Comr. Gen. Susno Duadji, who has spoken out about corruption in the National Police but at the same time has been named a suspect in two graft cases.

Susno’s lawyer, Maqdir Ismail, argued in court that the law contained contradictory articles — one stating a witness is not immune to prosecution and another saying witnesses should be protected.

“Article 12, Section 2 contradicts Article 12, Section 1 of the same law, which stipulates that a witness who helps law enforcers unravel major crimes should be protected,” Maqdir told the court, effectively saying that protection should mean immunity.

The Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) agreed to grant Susno protection at one of its safe houses after the former National Police chief of detectives claimed to have received death threats while in police custody.

However, police have said they will not hand over Susno because he has been charged with taking a Rp 500 million ($55,000) bribe to expedite a criminal investigation on behalf of a fish-farm owner in Riau, and also with embezzling Rp 3.8 billion from the West Java gubernatorial election security fund in 2008.

Constitution Court Judge Akil Mochtar warned during the hearing that changing the law could have dire consequences.

“This court’s decision is final and binding and affects the whole legal system. It is not limited to Susno alone,” he said. “Without this provision, it is impossible to have two perpetrators tried separately because that would mean they are both witnesses and defendants at the same time.

“Who then should be protected and who should be prosecuted? We would have to completely overhaul the legal system.”

Akil, however, agreed to give the plaintiff more time to present his argument.

Separately, the Judicial Mafia Eradication Task Force is also seeking an annulment of the provision through the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

“A witness must be protected until it is proven that he is not under imminent threat or his allegations provided to law enforcers are proven to be false,” task force member Mas Achmad Santosa said. “Unless something is done, nobody would want to become a whistle-blower.”