South Jakarta District Court Chief Judge I Ketut Darpawan has rejected the pretrial motion filed by former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology and Gojek founder, Nadiem Anwar Makarim.
Nadiem had sought the pretrial review after being named a suspect by the Attorney General’s Office in an alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebook laptops under the ministry’s education digitalisation programme between 2019 and 2022.
“The court rules to reject the petitioner’s pretrial motion,” Judge Darpawan said during the hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Monday, 13 October.
The judge stated that the court had examined Nadiem’s petition as well as the Attorney General’s response in case number 119/Pid.Pra/2025/PN JKT.SEL.
According to Kompas.com, expert opinions from Chairul Huda, a legal scholar from Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta (UMJ) representing Nadiem’s side, and Suparji Ahmad, a law expert from Al Azhar University Indonesia (UAI) representing the Attorney General’s Office, were also considered in the ruling.
Based on the considerations read out in court, the judge found that the Attorney General’s Office possessed four valid pieces of evidence to name Nadiem a suspect, as stipulated in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
The defence argued that Nadiem’s designation as a suspect was procedurally flawed, claiming it was made without a prior examination of Nadiem as a potential suspect.
They also noted that the Investigation Warrant (Sprindik) and the Letter of Suspect Designation were issued on the same day, 4 September, coinciding with the implementation of his detention.
Moreover, they contended that the suspect designation was not preceded by a Notification of Commencement of Investigation (SPDP) and was not supported by an audit report on state financial losses from the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP).
Nadiem’s legal team argued that the Attorney General’s actions were arbitrary and violated criminal procedural law.
In their petition, the defence also maintained that Nadiem did not personally benefit from the education digitalisation project.
In addition to seeking the annulment of the suspect designation, Nadiem’s team requested that, if the case proceeds to prosecution, his detention be replaced with city arrest or house arrest.
