Amsal Christy Sitepu, a videographer from Karo Regency, has been acquitted by the panel of judges at the Medan Corruption Court. He was previously accused of inflating the budget for the production of 20 village profile videos, a charge that alleged a markup in his services causing state losses of Rp 202 million. Prosecutors had contended that several items in the video production’s budget plan (RAB), including ideation/concept development, editing, cutting, dubbing, and clip-on/lapel microphones, should have been valued at Rp 0.
Following his acquittal, Amsal attended a hearing with the House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III on Thursday (2/4). The Commission III also invited Karo Chief Prosecutor (Kajari) Danke Rajagukguk and her staff, who handled Amsal’s case, to the session.
Here is a summary of the discussions during the hearing.
Habiburokhman Grills Karo Chief Prosecutor on Legal Basis and Alleged Intimidation in Amsal’s Case
Habiburokhman, Chairman of DPR Commission III, intensely questioned the Karo Chief Prosecutor regarding the handling of Amsal’s case. Commission III also highlighted allegations of intimidation against Amsal, including the purported delivery of brownies by a prosecutor.
Habiburokhman demanded an explanation for the legal basis used to designate Amsal Christy Sitepu as a suspect in the alleged video profile budget markup case. “Firstly, what were the legal grounds for designating Amsal Christy Sitepu as a suspect?” Habiburokhman inquired.
He further challenged the Karo Prosecutor’s Office’s arguments regarding alleged price inflation in the project. Additionally, Commission III scrutinized the reasons for Amsal’s detention, asserting that objective requirements under the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) must be met. “Secondly, what was the reason for Amsal Christy Sitepu’s detention?” Habiburokhman pressed.
The Commission III also addressed alleged intimidation against Amsal and other parties by several prosecutors. These allegations surfaced after a gift of brownies was reportedly delivered, accompanied by a request for Amsal not to hire a lawyer and to cease creating protest content.
Habiburokhman warned that acts of intimidation by officials could potentially violate criminal provisions. Commission III also sought clarification regarding the Karo Prosecutor’s Office’s narrative, which suggested that the DPR was intervening in the legal process. “Fourthly, Commission III demands an explanation as to why the Karo Prosecutor’s Office created a misleading narrative, implying that Commission III was intervening,” Habiburokhman firmly stated.
Furthermore, Commission III brought up the controversy surrounding the implementation of Amsal’s detention suspension. The DPR questioned the issuance of a letter from the Karo Prosecutor’s Office stating that the transfer of detention could not be carried out, despite a court order granting the suspension.
Habiburokhman noted a distinction between detention suspension and a change in the type of detention. He also pointed to alleged delays by the Karo Prosecutor’s Office in following up on the court’s decision. “In fact, it was the Karo Prosecutor’s Office that was late in arriving at Tanjung Gusta Prison, more than 2.5 hours after the appointed time,” Habiburokhman remarked.
Amsal Thanks DPR Commission III: “I Am Free Today”
Amsal Christy Sitepu expressed his direct gratitude to the members of the House of Representatives Commission III. Amsal, who was initially seated, suddenly stood up and bowed in thanks to the Commission III, which had held a hearing on his case prior to his verdict session.
“First, I want to thank the Chairman of DPR Commission III, Mr. Habiburokhman, the leaders, and all members of Commission III. Thank you very much, Sir, I am free today, Sir, thank you very much,” Amsal said, bowing his head.
“Special thanks also to Mr. Hinca Panjaitan, who represented Commission III as my guarantor and also oversaw this case,” he added.
Amsal then resumed his seat and recounted the chronology of the case before the Commission III members.
Prosecutor Wira Arizona Denies Intimidating Amsal with Brownies: “No Ill Intent Whatsoever”
Prosecutor Wira Arizona from the Karo Prosecutor’s Office denied allegations of intimidating Amsal by sending him brownies. Addressing Commission III, Wira stated that the gesture originated purely from his conscience and was a common practice at the Karo Prosecutor’s Office.
Previously, Amsal had disclosed this alleged intimidation to DPR Commission III. He claimed that the delivery of brownies at Tanjung Gusta Prison was accompanied by a message asking Amsal not to create confrontational content because “someone was disturbed.”
“With due respect, I had no ill intent whatsoever. We were purely prioritizing humanity and conscience,” Wira stated during the meeting.
“And here, I will also provide some documentation from 2024. This has become our culture, Sir, in Tanah Karo, Sir,” he added.
Wira explained that their meeting at Tanjung Gusta Prison was for an examination, and Amsal’s lawyer was aware of it.
According to Wira, this tradition began with requests from several defendants for food. “Because initially, these requests came from the detainees, Sir. They asked for help because they lacked food, like that, Sir,” Wira clarified.
He emphasized that his presence had no intention of intimidation.
Asked About ‘Propaganda’ in Amsal’s Case by DPR Commission III, Karo Chief Prosecutor: “Typographical Error”
DPR Commission III suspected an attempt at propaganda to resist Amsal’s detention suspension. One such propaganda effort, according to Habiburokhman, Chairman of DPR Commission III, involved slow administrative processes and a discrepancy between the prosecutor’s letter and the court’s order. The prosecutor’s letter referred to “transfer of detention,” not “suspension” as per the court.
Habiburokhman questioned why there was a difference between the two documents and asked the Karo Chief Prosecutor for an explanation.
“The court’s document states, ‘granting the petitioner’s request to suspend the detention of defendant Amsal Christy Sitepu from Tanjung Gusta state detention center’,” Habiburokhman read aloud.
“The prosecutor’s document, look at the subject line, ‘notification of detention transfer order.’ These are two different things. A transfer of detention type is Article 108, while detention suspension is Article 110 of the new KUHAP. Please, Madam, explain this,” he added.
Danke then admitted to a typing error in the letter issued by the prosecutor’s office. “Permission, Chairman, the subject line of the letter we drafted says ‘notification of transfer order.’ Yes, permission, ‘transfer’ was indeed a mistake in the writing, Chairman,” Danke stated.
Habiburokhman subsequently pressed Danke regarding this typing error. “Was it an intentional mistake or what?” Habiburokhman asked.
“Yes, it was indeed a typing error by the typist, Chairman,” Danke replied.
“You signed it without checking? As the Chief Prosecutor, you should understand that these two matters are different,” Habiburokhman questioned further.
“Yes, Chairman, yes, it was a mistake, Chairman. Yes, Chairman, yes, it was a mistake, Chairman,” Danke repeatedly answered.
Karo Chief Prosecutor Apologizes to Commission III and Amsal for Budget Markup Indictment
Karo Chief Prosecutor, Danke, conveyed her apologies for the errors made by her office in prosecuting Amsal. Danke admitted fault and described her actions as an oversight.
“We apologize for all our mistakes and oversights,” Danke stated during the meeting with DPR Commission III and Amsal on Thursday (2/4) at the DPR building.
Danke also expressed gratitude to DPR Commission III for all the input and criticism provided. “Thank you, Chairman. I, as the Karo Chief Prosecutor, am very grateful for the input and criticism conveyed by the honorable members of Commission III, which we will use for improvement and implementation as advised by all of you,” she said.
Commission III Member Calls for Karo Chief Prosecutor’s Removal Following Amsal’s Case: “Go Back to School”
Members of DPR Commission III urged the removal of personnel from the Karo Prosecutor’s Office following their handling of Amsal’s case. Hinca Panjaitan, a Commission III member, requested the Head of the North Sumatra High Prosecutor’s Office, Harli Siregar, who was also present at the hearing, to withdraw all parties involved in the case.
“So, Mr. Chief High Prosecutor, through the Chairman, I will not retract a single word so that this proceeds properly. Withdraw the Chief Prosecutor, withdraw all section heads, everyone involved in this case! And after that, you must apologize and retract this because the error is fatal,” Hinca declared.
Hinca suggested that the Karo Prosecutor’s Office personnel involved in the case should be sent for further education. “However, professionally, we cannot simply stop this. In our terms, dismiss them first, then send them back to school, let them learn again so that everything is done correctly,” Hinca emphasized.
Another Commission III member, Wayan Sudirta, believed there were fatal errors in the drafting of the indictment, leading to an acquittal. “Firstly, the Chief Prosecutor was wrong to allow her subordinates to draw up an indictment with very weak elements of the alleged criminal act. What was the consequence? An acquittal,” Wayan explained.
He felt that such an error warranted a job reassignment. “If I were the North Sumatra Chief High Prosecutor, I would simply transfer this Chief Prosecutor because her mistakes are very fatal,” Wayan added.
Meanwhile, Safaruddin, a Commission III member from the PDIP Faction, affirmed that prosecutors who commit irregularities must face action. “I ask the Prosecutor’s Office, the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes, the Deputy Attorney General for Supervision, to implement this. The Karo Chief Prosecutor and all her culpable staff must be disciplined. They must be disciplined! This is not just words on paper, but must be carried out,” Safaruddin stressed.
DPR Commission III: Amsal Sitepu’s Acquittal Cannot Be Appealed or Cassated Under KUHAP
DPR Commission III emphatically stated that the acquittal of Amsal cannot be subjected to appeal or cassation. This conclusion was formalized in the summary of the hearing between Commission III, Amsal, the Karo Prosecutor’s Office, and the North Sumatra High Prosecutor’s Office.
“DPR Commission III affirms that in the handling of Amsal Christy Sitepu’s case, in line with the spirit of the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) provisions, an acquittal cannot be challenged through legal remedies such as appeal or cassation,” stated Habiburokhman, Chairman of DPR Commission III.
Additionally, Commission III called for a thorough evaluation of the Karo Prosecutor’s Office personnel who handled the case. “DPR Commission III requests the Junior Attorney General for Supervision to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Karo Prosecutor’s Office personnel who handled Case Number 171/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Mdn involving Amsal Christy Sitepu, and to submit a written report on the results of this evaluation to DPR Commission III within 1 (one) month,” he elaborated.
Commission III also demanded a full investigation into the alleged intimidation against Amsal. “DPR Commission III requests law enforcement officials to thoroughly investigate the intimidation experienced by Amsal Christy Sitepu, allegedly carried out by Public Prosecutor Wira Arizona, Head of the Special Criminal Section (Kasi Pidsus) Reinhard Harve Sembiring, and Head of the Intelligence Section (Kasi Intel) Dona Martinus Sebayang,” Habiburokhman announced.
Furthermore, Commission III requested an investigation into alleged violations related to the non-implementation of the judicial panel’s decision. “DPR Commission III asks the Junior Attorney General for Supervision to investigate the alleged violations by Karo Prosecutor’s Office personnel, specifically for not implementing the Medan District Court Judicial Panel’s Order Number 171/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Mdn, and for creating propaganda that implied DPR Commission III was intervening in the legal process of Amsal Christy Sitepu’s case,” Habiburokhman added.
Lastly, Commission III urged the Attorney General’s Commission to conduct an examination of the case. “DPR Commission III requests the Attorney General’s Commission of the Republic of Indonesia to conduct an examination of Amsal Christy Sitepu’s case as material for a comprehensive evaluation of the Prosecutor’s Office’s performance,” he concluded.