Priscilla Djemat looks at the case from a broader legal perspective, comparing the legal principles of Indonesia and Australia.
Nadiem is currently appealing the verdict at the Jakarta High Court after being sentenced to 10 years in prison by the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on June 30, 2026. He was also fined IDR 1 billion and ordered to pay around IDR 809.59 billion in compensation.
Amid a polarized public debate, with some people supporting the verdict while others questioning its legal basis, SBS Indonesia spoke with Priscilla Djemat, Vice Managing Partner at GDP Law, who is currently continuing her studies in Melbourne.
According to Priscilla, a government policy that is later found to be wrong, ineffective, or even to have caused financial losses cannot automatically be treated as a criminal offence. The key question is whether all the elements of a criminal offence including the required level of fault and intent can actually be proven.
From an Australian legal perspective, Priscilla says that factors such as dishonesty, corrupt intent, or personal gain obtained through the misuse of public office can be relevant when distinguishing a governance issue from conduct that may amount to a criminal offence. However, the elements that must be proven depend on the specific offence being charged. Australian law recognises different forms of criminal fault, including intention, knowledge, and recklessness.
Government procurement in Australia is also subject to governance and probity requirements, which emphasise integrity, transparency, and proper management of conflicts of interest. This means that not every problem involving government decision-making automatically becomes a criminal case.
Under Australian law, ineffective policies or those that cause harm to the state do not necessarily constitute a criminal offense. The Australian legal system does not focus on harm to the state, but rather on elements such as dishonesty, corrupt intent, and personal gain obtained through the abuse of office, in the absence of these elements, general policy errors are addressed through administrative mechanisms rather than criminal proceedings.Pricilla Djemat
From an Indonesian legal perspective, Nadiem’s case must still be assessed under Indonesian law and based on the facts examined by the court. The first-instance court found Nadiem guilty, while a dissenting opinion shows that members of the panel had different legal views on whether the case had been proven.
Ultimately, Nadiem’s case is still going through the appeals process. Therefore, any analysis of the case should clearly distinguish between facts established by the court, the arguments made by each side, and legal opinions about whether the elements of the alleged criminal offence have been met.
