JAKARTA: Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto came to office pledging an uncompromising fight against corruption, repeatedly warning officials to "clean themselves up” before law-enforcement agencies did it for them.
Less than two years later, that promise is facing one of its most sensitive tests.
The corruption investigation into Febrie Adriansyah (pic) - until last week the nation’s deputy attorney general for special crimes and its most powerful anti-corruption prosecutor - has exposed a thorny question: how law-enforcement agencies investigate one of their own.
For many legal experts, the most controversial aspect of the case is not the allegations themselves or Febrie’s continued freedom during the probe, but the police decision to transfer three related cases to the Attorney General’s Office, where he spent much of his career.
A week after police seized US$26 million in cash and gold bars from a house Febrie owns and named him a suspect in cases involving alleged money laundering, the former prosecutor remains free - even as another suspect in the case was arrested Friday (July 10).
Police haven’t publicly explained why Febrie hasn’t been detained. Although police have transferred the three related cases to the Attorney General’s Office, saying the move was intended to strengthen coordination between the two institutions, officers remain involved in evidence verification and the staged handover of case materials.
That includes testing the seized gold bars and seeking assistance from the FBI, the US Secret Service, and the US and Singapore embassies to authenticate foreign currency seized in the raids.
But criticism of the transfer has mounted, adding to scrutiny of a case already complicated by Febrie’s long career at the Attorney General’s Office.
Former Constitutional Court Chief Justice Mahfud MD has questioned whether Indonesia’s criminal procedure code provides any legal basis for transferring an active police investigation to prosecutors, warning that the move could expose the case to a pretrial challenge.
Lawmakers have also formed a working group to monitor the case, and some have called on the Attorney General’s Office to create an independent team to handle it.
Zaenur Rohman, an anti-corruption scholar at Gadjah Mada University, described the transfer as "a political settlement aimed at easing tensions” between the police and the Attorney General’s Office. "But it is not a settlement grounded in the law.”
Allowing prosecutors to investigate one of their former leaders creates an inherent conflict of interest, he said, adding that the country’s Corruption Eradication Commission, a state agency operating within the executive branch, would be better placed to handle the case.
Police and prosecutors have rejected suggestions that the case reflects institutional conflict, saying coordination between the agencies remains intact.
Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the coordinating minister for law, human rights, immigration and corrections, defended the transfer on Monday, saying in a statement that it could make the investigation more efficient. But he also acknowledged public concerns that it could amount to "oranges eating oranges” - an Indonesian expression roughly meaning one institution protecting its own.
Speaking separately to reporters, Yusril was quoted by news outlet Detik as saying Prabowo had met both the police chief and the attorney general to give them directions on handling the transfer.
Still, the police and the Attorney General’s Office have long had overlapping roles in corruption investigations, creating periodic competition for influence, visibility and control over politically sensitive cases.
The sensitivity of the case is heightened by Febrie’s stature. Few prosecutors wielded greater influence. As head of the Attorney General’s Office’s Special Crimes Division, he oversaw some of Indonesia’s biggest corruption investigations, including probes involving Pertamina, Timah, Garuda Indonesia, Prabowo’s signature free-meals programme and former Education Minister Nadiem Makarim.
As of Wednesday, Febrie’s whereabouts had not been publicly disclosed. Immigration authorities said he had been banned from leaving Indonesia for 20 days at the request of the police. In remarks before his resignation last week, Febrie acknowledged owning one of the houses raided by police but said the cash and gold bars found there did not belong to him.
Public signs of tension have eased since last week, when armed soldiers were deployed around Febrie’s residence in South Jakarta during the police raids. Prabowo over the weekend called for "introspection” from all sides, and the National Police chief appeared publicly with the attorney general Monday to deny any rift.
The Attorney General’s Office this week also ordered regional prosecutors to stop collecting data and information related to the country’s $15 billion free-meals programme, saying the initial collection period had ended and cautioning against abuse of authority in the field. The move came after its investigation into the programme earlier this month named an active police brigadier general a suspect in the case.
"The events don’t explicitly prove institutional conflict, but the sequence tells a story,” said Aditya Perdana, a political lecturer at the University of Indonesia.
The raids came as Prabowo, a former army general, has intensified his anti-corruption campaign through a series of high-profile investigations involving state-owned companies, former ministers and his flagship meals program. Authorities have repeatedly showcased seized cash, gold bars and luxury assets during televised press conferences.
The case has also drawn attention to shifting power balances among Indonesia’s law-enforcement institutions. The police, the Attorney General’s Office and the Corruption Eradication Commission have overlapping roles in corruption cases, while the military has taken on a more visible role around prosecutors following legal changes in 2025.
"The powers of criminal investigation, particularly in corruption cases, are jealously fought over by law-enforcement agencies because they lie at the core of their political and economic power,” said Jacqui Baker, a senior lecturer in South-East Asian politics at Murdoch University.
Successive presidents have sought to balance the influence of the police, prosecutors and military, rather than allowing any one institution to dominate, she said.
That balancing act has continued under Prabowo, albeit with several changes. A 2025 revision to Indonesia’s military law added the Attorney General’s Office to the list of civilian institutions where active-duty military officers can serve without first retiring or resigning from the armed forces.
A separate change that year broadened the legal basis for the Attorney General’s Office to seek military protection for prosecutors, a function previously handled solely by police. - Bloomberg
