Public Prosecutors v. Nadiem Anwar Makarim

Case Citation 

Public Prosecutors v. Nadiem Anwar Makarim, 147/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst, Supreme Court of Center Jakarta, decided 26 June 2026. Purwanto S. Abdullah, S.H., M.H.; Sunoto S.H., M.H.; Eryusuman S.H., M.H.; Mardiantos S.H., M.Kn.; Andi Saputra S.H., M.H.;

B. Introduction 

On June 30, 2026, the Jakarta Corruption Court issued a landmark yet highly contested judgment in State v. Nadiem Anwar Makarim (Case No. 147/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst). The court found the former Minister of Education and Culture guilty of collective corruption under subsidiary charges of abusing ministerial authority, sentencing him to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of one billion rupiah. Centered on the controversial school digitalization procurement program involving over one million Google Chromebooks between 2020 and 2022, the prosecution successfully alleged that the technical tender specifications were deliberately altered to favor a specific operating system ecosystem, resulting in an estimated state loss of 1.56 trillion rupiah. 

Beyond its political ramifications, this case serves as a critical focal point for contemporary legal analysis within continental and international criminal law scholarship. It exposes systemic vulnerabilities in Indonesia’s civil law framework. Most notably, the judgment ignites deep academic debate over the evidentiary threshold applied to establish mens rea (guilty mind) in public policy decisions. While the majority opinion inferred criminal intent from a pattern of regulatory choices, a significant dissenting opinion argued that the admitted communications constituted mere political maneuvering rather than willful malice, a perspective echoed by senior legal advocates warning against the systemic “criminalization of public policy”. This case summary provides a comprehensive review of the factual matrix, analyzes the judicial reasoning behind the ratio decidendi, and assesses the long-term jurisprudential implications of this verdict on administrative discretion and the codification of mens rea in Indonesia. 

Fact of the Case 

One of the National Medium-Term Development Plans is the digitalization of frontier, outermost, and disadvantaged regions by providing educational support through the procurement of laptops. Muhadjir Effendy, in his capacity as the Minister of Education and Culture, prior to Nadiem, was executing the program in cooperation with Google. Nonetheless, it failed to achieve the intended outcome. Preceding his tenure as the minister, Nadiem held the position of founder of the PT Gojek Indonesia. In 2015, in cooperation with Andre Soelistyo, establishing PT AKAB (Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa) and forming a partnership with Google. 

Prior to his official appointment as Minister of Education and Culture in October 2019, Nadiem established several WhatsApp groups comprised of affiliates from the PSPK Foundation to deliberate upon the educational digitalization program. Also, integrating the Minimum Competency Assessment (MCA) and the Merdeka Belajar programs into the digitalization agenda. On November, 2019, Nadiem issued a power of attorney to Didik Suhardi to execute an MoU with the PSPK Foundation about the agreement of implementation of the MCA and Merdeka Belajar programs, which were originally developed by Najeela Shihab under the PSPK Foundation. 

In November 2019, Nadiem arranged a meeting with Colin Marson to deliberate the Google product for education. Furthermore, in December 2019, Nadiem established a technological team to support the implementation of the MCA and Merdeka Belajar program, comprised of Ibrahim Arif as a consultant under the PSPK Foundation. Nadiem officially appointed Jurist Tan and Fiona Handayani as Special Staff to the Minister (SKM), granting them extensive executive authority over ministry operations. 

From January to July 2020, several meetings were held that elaborated on the program implementation, even though Chromebooks with Chrome OS systems were devoid of benefit for the schools. In June 2020, Multasyah directed Harnowo and Ceppy to stipulate the product parameters to PT Bhinneka Mentaridimensi for their subsequent onboarding as an authorized provider. Thereafter, the demand for laptop provision persisted, and transactions continued to occur. In 2021, the acting of the bureau issued official references to five electronics manufacturers to provide laptops with the Chrome OS system in a catalog that used the Suggested Retail Price (SRP) system. Nadiem was indicted on charges because he insisted on the Chromebook program, even though in 2018 the program didn’t meet the expectations. Moreover, Nadiem, acting in concert with other defendants, committed abuse of power that resulted in the state’s financial loss. 

Legal Issue 

Whether the procurement of Chromebook-based laptops constitutes a legally cognizable material loss to state finances or the state economy totaling IDR 809.5 billion under the Anti-Corruption Law?

Whether Nadiem Anwar Makarim acted with the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) or engaged in an illicit conspiracy by directing the procurement policy to secure unlawful enrichment for himself, third parties, or a corporate entity? 

Arguments Presented 

Prosecution’s Arguments 

The public prosecutor, in supplementary charges under Section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act in conjunction with Section 604 of the Criminal Code of 2023, argued that Nadiem had abused the authority, opportunities or resources available to him by virtue of his position as Minister of Education and Culture.This relates to the procurement of Chromebooks as part of the digitalization of education in Indonesia, in collaboration with Google. It is also known that the company founded by Nadiem has received investment from Google. The prosecutor also emphasized that this procurement of Chromebooks has caused a loss to the state coffers of more than 1.5 trillion rupiah. This loss was caused by the Chromebook project being deemed unnecessary and of no benefit to Indonesia’s education digitization program. In the indictment, the prosecutor emphasized that Juris Tan and Fiona Handayani, who were authorized by Nadiem, held a number of discussions and meetings that essentially urged that the procurement of laptops running the Chrome OS system still be carried out. 

Defense’s Arguments 

Nadiem rebutted the indictment on the grounds that several legal elements of the proffered charges were not fulfilled. Furthermore, he argued the absence of mens rea in his actions, asserting that the selection of Chrome OS was an independent decision made by his subordinate team. Nadiem stated that he had never executed any documents pertaining to the Chromebook procurement and had only attended a single meeting. Additionally, he refuted the allegations of a conflict of interest regarding his two companies, maintaining that he had divested his shareholdings prior to assuming office as the Minister of Education. Nadiem further contended that the determination of state financial losses regarding the Chromebook procurement was an observation entirely unsubstantiated by any institutional audit, constituting a mere opinion. To corroborate his argument, Nadiem presented several witnesses, including educators from institutions directly impacted by the Chromebook procurement project. 

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis Recommended

In examining the primary indictment under Article 2(1) of the Anti-Corruption Law, the Court found the element of acting “through unlawful means” was not proven. Through a rigorous evaluation of the trial evidence, the panel of judges reasoned that the Defendant’s conduct did not constitute an independent, unlawful act committed in a purely personal capacity. Instead, the Court observed that the contested actions were explicitly executed by an official ministerial power inherent to his public office. Because the element of unlawful personal conduct could not be substantiated, the primary indictment failed to meet the strict cumulative threshold and was subsequently dismissed by the court. 

The analysis of the judgment transitioned to the subsidiary indictment under Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law juncto Article 604 of the New Criminal Code. In contrast to the primary charge, the Court found that the prosecution successfully established all statutory elements cumulatively. The first element was readily satisfied by the Defendant’s legal status as a person. Regarding the second element, “the intent to enrich or benefit another party or corporation,” the Court accepted the evidence demonstrating that the underlying transactions directly generated commercial benefits for Google. 

Central to the Court’s logical progression was its extensive evaluation of the third element concerning the “abuse of authority, opportunities, or facilities derived from an official position”. The Court concluded that the Defendant had systematically bypassed institutional boundaries by placing his special staff, Jurist Tan and Fiona Handayani, into functional roles that vastly exceeded their normative mandates. Furthermore, the judiciary identified administrative deviations, noting that the ministerial regulations favoring Google products were enacted without the requisite technical feasibility studies. 

Finally, the fourth element regarding “state financial loss was fully substantiated.” The Court relied heavily on the comprehensive audit report issued by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency, which was corroboratively supported by consistent witness testimonies and physical evidence presented during the trial. Consequently, the Court sustained the subsidiary indictment, establishing a clear logical progression from administrative overreach to a definitive finding of public sector corruption. 

Dissenting Opinion 

The juridical analysis concludes that the elements of corruption were not substantiated due to the absolute absence of both mens rea and actus reus on the part of the Defendant, Nadiem. The evidence failed to establish any instances of nepotism, unlawful financial enrichment, or abuse of authority, as there was no indication of personal intervention in ministerial appointments or capital flight from the Chromebook procurement process. Furthermore, the Court determined that the execution of Ministerial Regulation (Permendikbud) No. 5/2021 did not constitute an unlawful act (actus reus), particularly given that the regulation specified an operating system rather than a proprietary brand, thereby preserving market diversity. Consequently, any commercial benefit accrued by third parties or the valuation increase of PT AKAB was driven exclusively by independent market mechanisms rather than the Defendant’s official conduct. 

Judgment Ratio Decidencies 

In its final verdict, the Court formally declared that the Defendant, Nadiem Anwar Makarim, was not proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing the criminal act characterized in the Primary Indictment, thereby entirely acquitting him of the aforementioned charge. Conversely, the Court adjudged that the Defendant was proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing the criminal offense of “corruption perpetrated jointly and collectively” as stipulated under the Subsidiary Indictment. Consequently, the judiciary sentenced the Defendant to a primary term of imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and imposed a punitive fine of IDR 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah). In the event of non-payment within the statutorily mandated timeframe, the Defendant’s assets and income shall be subject to asset forfeiture and public auction; should the proceeds prove insufficient, the fine shall be substituted with a consecutive prison term of 190 (one hundred and ninety) days. 

Furthermore, the Court ordered an additional restitution penalty (uang pengganti) amounting to IDR 809,597,125,000.00 (eight hundred nine billion five hundred ninety-seven million one hundred twenty-five thousand rupiah). Failure to satisfy this financial restitution within one month after the judgment becomes final and binding (inkracht van gewijsde) empowers the prosecutor to seize and auction the Defendant’s assets, failing which a supplementary 5 (five) year prison sentence shall be imposed. Finally, the Court mandated that the total duration of the Defendant’s pre-trial detention be deducted in its entirety from the principal prison sentence, establishing that his period under state detention center custody be computed at full credit, whereas his house arrest since May 12, 2026, be calculated at a one-third ratio in compliance with prevailing statutory mandates.

Critical Analysis 

The judicial decision and ratio decidendi lacking robust reasoning in the corruption case involving Nadiem potentially undermine the Indonesian legal system. As a civil law jurisdiction, Indonesia does not recognize jurisprudence (yurisprudensi) as formally binding precedent, rendering it merely persuasive.1 Nonetheless, select judicial decisions may serve as reference points for judges in adjudicating subsequent cases, provided the Supreme Court officially recognizes them as established jurisprudence.2 Consequently, the judgment in this case could highly likely serve as a precedent to criminalize public policymakers. 

Todung Mulya Lubis assesses that the legal reasoning employed by the judges expands the interpretation of abuse of authority beyond the traditionally recognized boundaries of administrative and criminal law. Should such an interpretation persist, any decision by a public official subsequently deemed erroneous or sub-optimal could easily be drawn into the criminal sphere. 3 

Consequently, the scope for decision-making requiring fortitude and administrative discretion risks being constrained due to the looming threat of legal prosecution. Furthermore, this judgment introduces significant ambiguity regarding the element of mens rea. In Indonesian jurisprudence, this principle dictates that a criminal offense requires not only the physical act (actus reus) but also the intent or culpable mental state of the perpetrator.4 

To establish mens rea, law enforcement authorities typically rely on various forms of evidence indicating intent, including recorded conversations, written communications, conduct preceding and succeeding the offense, and testimonies from individuals close to the accused.5In the case at bar, the majority opinion inferred mens rea from the pattern of repetition and intent in signing regulations that benefited specific corporations, compounded by the alleged abuse of ministerial authority in appointing individuals to substantive positions. Conversely, in a dissenting opinion, other judges argued that such considerations were insufficient to establish mens rea in the defendant’s actions. The dissenting opinion further observed that the conversations admitted as evidence at trial constituted political maneuvering rather than willful criminal intent. 

Conclusion 

In its final judgment, the court found Nadiem Makarim guilty of abuse of power, sentencing him to ten years of imprisonment alongside a fine of one billion rupiah. This judicial outcome exacerbates systemic concerns, as the judges’ ambiguous assessment in this specific case not only undermines the core tenets of legal certainty (rechtserkerheid) within Indonesia’s civil law framework but also severely dilutes the conceptual application of mens rea. By failing to establish a precise evidentiary threshold for criminal intent, the ruling blurs the demarcation line between administrative error and criminal culpability. Such ambiguity disrupts the stability of public administration, as it sets a dangerous precedent where legitimate policy discretion can be misconstrued as a corrupt act. Ultimately, this conceptual dilution weakens the integrity of the judiciary, generating a chilling effect on public governance while distorting the fundamental criminal law doctrine that requires a clear convergence of actus reus and mens rea for a conviction to stand.

Reference(S):

Aris Munandar, Wirda, Aditya Slamet Rusbandi, Muhammad Zulhendra, Saiful Bahri, Danang Fajri, Peran Niat (Mens rea) dalam Pertanggungjawaban Pidana di Indonesia, JIMMI: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Multidisiplin, Vol. 1, No. 3, Oktober 2024, hal. 240-252. 

Lubis, Todung Mulya, Vonis 10 Tahun Nadiem Jadi Presiden, HUKUM ONLINE, hukumonline.com 

Raharjo, A. P. & E. F. Dwi Putri, Analisis Pemberian Wasiat Wajibah terhadap Ahli Waris Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018, 1 JURNAL SUARA HUKUM 172 (2019), 

Susianto, S., Mahkamah Konstitusi: Etika Kehakiman dan Kendaraan Politik Penguasa, 12 BINAMULIA HUKUM 459 (2024),

1Raharjo, A. P., & Dwi Putri, E. F. (2019). Analisis Pemberian Wasiat Wajibah terhadap Ahli Waris Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018. Jurnal Suara Hukum, 1(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v1n2.p172-185

2 Susianto, S. (2024). Mahkamah Konstitusi: Etika Kehakiman dan Kendaraan Politik Penguasa. Binamulia Hukum, 12(2), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.37893/jbh.v12i2.695 

3 Todung Mulya Lubis, Vonis 10 Tahun Nadiem Jadi Presiden, Hukum Online , 

https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/todung-mulya-lubis–vonis-10-tahun-nadiem-jadi-presede.

4Id 

5 Aris Munandar, Wirda, Aditya Slamet Rusbandi, Muhammad Zulhendra, Saiful Bahri, Danang Fajri, Peran Niat (Mens rea) dalam Pertanggungjawaban Pidana di Indonesia, JIMMI: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Multidisiplin, Vol. 1, No. 3, Oktober 2024, hal. 240-252.