Panel Board of Constitutional Justice Akil Mochtar (Chairman) accompanied by Muhammad Alim and Hamdan Zoelva taking witnesses oath before giving their testimonials in the session for election result dispute of Tebo Regency, Jambi, Friday (1/4) at the Constitutional Court Plenary room.
Jakarta, MKOnline - Witnesses from Election Commission had their turn to express their information before the Panel Board of Justices of the Constitutional Court (The Court) in relation to the election of Tebo Regency, Jambi on Friday (1/4). Witnesses of the Commission or the Respondents stated that the election had run well despite the objections.
The session lead by Panel Board of Justices M. Akil Mochtar at first asked about the information from Respondents witnesses. As the first witness was M. Suyanto, Head of Rimbo Bujang District Election Committee who claimed that there was no special incident in the voting day.
Different from Suyanto, another witnesses Anang Prasetyo who were also Head of Rimbo Ulu District Committee admitted that in his area there were objections submitted by witness from candidate 1 (Sukandar-Hamdi). The witness delivered 4 objections; Firstly, allegation on money politic practices committed by candidate 3; secondly, the involvement of civil servants in securing victory for candidate 3; thirdly, indication of involvement of Polling Committee members to support candidate 3; fourthly, the difference of C-1 recapitulation result from Sukandar-Hamdi and result from District Election Committee (PPK).
On the involvement of Group of Polling Committee (KPPS), Anang told that he did not find incidents as the witnesses of candidate 1 admitted. The Monitoring Committee (Panwas) also made the same recommendation. “About the unmatched C-1 form, we have settled it, we have clarified and we already have the same perception. Meanwhild about the KPPS, we did not explain which KPPS (involved in supporting candidate 3). During the process, we have never heard and no recommendation from Panwas. We also did not know about the involvement of Civil Servants,” denied Anang.
Similar things also happened in Rimbo Ilir. Mijan as the Head of PPK in Rimbo Ilir confirmed that witness of candidate 1 indeed made objections by not signing the form provided by the PPK in the recapitulation process. The reason for not signing as said to Mijan was not because of the result but because there was an instruction from the success team for candidate 1.
Amrizal, Head of PPk in Tengah Ilir District revealed similar things with the previous witness. He said that during the recapitulation process, witness of candidate 1 stated their objections among others; money politic practices, votes marking up in KPPS level though the exact location of the poll centers mentioned were not clear, undelivered invitation to vote, forgery of signature without clear location where it took place, deceits in KPPS level.
Besides that, witnesses for candidate 1 as mentioned by Amrizal also stated their objections without explaining the location of the crime scenes. “They also said about the involvement of civil servants in the election process, a sudden change of KPPS, intimidation from the authorities. About the change of personnel of KPPS, indeed there was, a day prior to the election. That was because the person was involved in a team of one candidate pair,” revealed Amrizal. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/YDJ)
Friday, April 01, 2011 | 20:47 WIB 204