KPK Safe House Has a Strong Legal Base

INDUSTRY.co.id - Jakarta - Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) spokesman Febri Diansyah stated that "safe house" or safe house of witness KPK has a strong legal basis.

Previously, the Special Committee on the Rights of the House of Representatives related to the Duties and Powers of the KPK will visit two locations that are suspected to be the place of KPK witness 'capture'.

"There is nothing to worry about for the KPK.’Safe house' is clear and strong legal basis. There are two laws that govern," Febri said in Jakarta, Friday (8/11/2017)

Febri explained that the basic law of witness protection and the first safe house, article 15 letter a KPK Law stating KPK is obliged to provide protection to witnesses or reporters who submit reports or provide information about the occurrence of criminal acts of corruption.

In the explanation of the article it is stated that the provision of protection in this provision includes the provision of security guarantees by requesting police assistance or changing the identity of the reporting party or "evacuating" including legal protection.

Second, he said, Article 5 Paragraph (1) Sub-Paragraph k Law Number 31 Year 2014 on Protection of Witness and Victim (UU PSK) was mentioned as witness and the victim was entitled to a temporary residence.

Whereas in the provision of Article 1 Sub-Article 8 of the PSK Law, it is stated that the protection is any effort to fulfill the right and providing assistance to provide a sense of security to the witness and / or victim that must be implemented by LPSK or other institutions in accordance with the provisions of this law.

Based on the above, according to Febri, KPK as an institution that has the authority to provide protection to witnesses must provide temporary residence to protected witnesses.

He was surprised if anyone said "safe house" there is no legal basis let alone call it as "home" only based on the testimony of one witness only, namely the witness bribery case Akil Mochtar, Niko Panji Tirtayasa.

"Even KPK itself has stopped the protection of the concerned because it is inconsistent and not cooperative when witnessed before," he said.

Furthermore, Febri stated that the Commission questioned related to the motivation of Pansus members who will visit the "safe house".

"We will see what the results are like because there seems to be very passionate parties to the house even though the DPR is actually recessing at this moment," he said.

Febri explains that Niko is a witness who had asked for protection of the KPK because there is pressure and intimidation against the concerned.

"After we check it, we give protection, not just "safe house"and even the cost of living for wife or family, but what is done at this time, we do not know what motivation or if someone tells them to be moved," he said.

According to Febri, the KPK did not consider the importance related to the visit of members of the Pansus to the "safe house".

"We will continue to work on major cases such as KTP-e and BLBI, including bribery cases related to procurement of Al Quran and projects in PUPR allegedly also flowing to many parties such as members of the House and the private sector. All actions taken KPK certainly based on the rule of law And can be accounted for," he said.