By: Laksamana Sukardi
The recent sharp decline in stock prices cannot be separated from the increasingly negative perception of legal certainty in Indonesia. High-profile legal cases involving Tom Lembong and Ira Puspadewi have already tarnished the credibility of law enforcement in the country.
That credibility is now being tested once again in the case of Nadiem Makarim, this time under international exposure, as a multinational corporation—Google—has been drawn into the public prosecutor’s allegations. Google, which is subject to the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), has formally denied any involvement in acts of corruption.
At its core, the problem is that public policy adopted through formal and lawful procedures has been treated as a criminal offense (policy criminalisation), placing both individual justice and institutional legal certainty at risk.
Below are four categories of facts that have been transparently revealed in open court to date:
1. Policy Forced into a Crime
Court proceedings have established that:
• There is no evidence of malicious intent prior to Nadiem assuming office. Claims regarding a pre-appointment WhatsApp group allegedly planning the use of Chromebooks have completely collapsed and were even removed from the indictment.
• There was no legally binding ministerial order directing the selection of Chrome OS; all technical specifications resided at the directorate level.
• The final decision to adopt 100 percent Chrome OS was taken in a meeting not attended by Nadiem.
Accordingly, a fundamental principle of criminal law has been violated:
“Without mens rea, there is no crime.”
Moreover, what should have been examined was policy, not criminal liability.
2. Tendentious and Inconsistent Prosecutorial Allegations
a) A shifting narrative
The initial allegation—that Chromebooks were unusable (total loss)—failed to be proven. The narrative then shifted to allegations of price mark-ups.
This mid-process change demonstrates that the prosecution did not follow the evidence; rather, the evidence was forced to conform to the accusation.
b) Alleged state losses without causality
It was revealed in court that:
• Procurement was conducted through the LKPP/SIPLah e-catalogue, at a level three tiers below the minister.
• The choice of operating system (Chrome vs. Windows) does not determine vendor pricing.
• Audits by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and two separate audits by BPKP found no state losses.
• The claim of state losses amounting to IDR 1.5 trillion emerged only after Nadiem was named a suspect.
There is therefore no causal link between the Chromebook operating-system policy and the alleged state loss.
Without causality, the criminal element must fail.
c) Double counting and speculation
The Chrome Device Management (CDM) license was treated as a separate loss of IDR 621 billion, even though it was already built into the laptop price, effectively counted twice.
The CDM license is required for essential functional purposes, including content control, monitoring, cybersecurity, and the prevention of online gambling and pornographic content.
The CDM license is required for essential functional purposes, including content control, monitoring, cybersecurity, and the prevention of online gambling and pornographic content.
This constitutes a forced construction of loss, rather than a legitimate accounting assessment.
3. A Manufactured Conflict of Interest
The widely publicized allegation of a “quid pro quo” involving Google collapses under factual scrutiny:
• Two-thirds of Google’s investment in Gojek occurred before Nadiem became minister.
• The post-appointment investment that raised suspicion was, in fact, a corporate top-up by Google to prevent dilution of its shareholding in Gojek.
This means Nadiem did not sell shares and did not receive any funds.
The economic logic is untenable—and the criminal logic even more so.
4. Ethical Breaches and Fair-Trial Concerns
Several serious facts revealed during trial indicate an abuse of process, including:
• Multiple prosecution witnesses whose examination reports (BAP) were identical copy-and-paste documents, a fact acknowledged and questioned by the presiding judge.
• Witnesses who admitted receiving gratuities were not charged, rendering them “compromised witnesses” lacking objectivity.
• A lack of transparency in the calculation of alleged state losses, as the prosecution attempted to withhold BPKP audit reports from the defense.
• Symbolic intimidation, including the presence of military escorts inside the courtroom.
These incidents are not merely procedural defects, but rather a display of abuse of process that disregards the sanctity of law enforcement proceedings.
Systemic Consequences
Based on facts revealed in court—not opinion—the following systemic impacts have emerged:
1. Constraints on national progress
Policymakers may choose inaction over innovation out of fear of criminal exposure.
2. Erosion of the rule of law
Law is increasingly perceived as an instrument of power rather than justice.
3. Public-policy brain drain
Young professionals, technocrats, and non-political talent will distance themselves from public service.
4. International reputational damage
Investors perceive legal uncertainty, driving up Indonesia’s risk premium.
Conclusion
Based on facts established in court to date, the Nadiem Makarim case demonstrates that criminal law is once again being used to correct policy rather than to punish crime.
This represents a tendentious form of policy criminalisation that:
• disregards the principle of ultimum remedium, which seeks to prevent excessive use of criminal law (over-criminalisation),
• undermines due process,
• and weakens public trust in justice.
What is being tested is not merely the professionalism of a former minister, but legal certainty in Indonesia itself, which directly determines the country’s sovereign risk rating.
Will Indonesia’s risk profile fall even further?
The key issue is legal certainty. Recent turbulence in Indonesia’s capital markets should serve as a clear warning.
Jakarta, 2 February 2026
