---

Friday, February 26, 2021 | 22:32 WIB

Candidate Pair No. 1 Nofi Candra-Yulfradi presenting witness Yoce Yolanda Kurnia at the evidentiary hearing of the 2020 Solok Regency election results dispute, Friday (26/2/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Teguh.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court’s (MK) Panel II held an evidentiary hearing of the 2020 Solok regent election dispute case No. 77/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 on Friday, February 26, 2021. The hearing had been scheduled to present the witnesses and experts as well as to verify evidence.

At the hearing, Candidate Pair No. 1 Nofi Candra-Yulfradi presented several witnesses, including Yoce Yolanda Kurnia, a witness coordinator at TPS 08 (polling station) of Nagari Salayo. She testified that one voter had used another voter’s identification when the Petitioner’s witness was not present. Meanwhile, Satria Ade Putra and Wornelis arrived late at TPS 28 and couldn’t vote, but their names were used by others to cast a vote.

Upon hearing the testimony, panel chair Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reviewed the attendance list owned by the regency’s General Elections Commission (KPU). He stressed that a witness report without evidence would be a weak piece of evidence. “Mrs. Yoce, you’re under oath to testify. Don’t perjure yourself because you might be sued in court,” he said.

At the hearing, it was revealed that Satria Ade Putra hadn’t signed the attendance list. In response, Yoce stressed that both Wornelis and Satria hadn’t cast their vote. “Neither of them voted or signed [the attendance list],” she said.

Also read: Alleged TSM and Administrative Violations in Purworejo, Solok, Rembang Regency Elections

Attendance List Questioned

The Petitioner’s second witness was Riki, a mandate witness in Lembah Gumanti Subdistrict, which had 132 polling stations. He said he’d questioned the red marks in the SIREKAP (the electronic recapitulation system), which he suspected were a data discrepancy or input mistakes at TPS 6, 9, and 11 of Nagari Salimpat. He then asked the Respondent for the attendance list, but the request was denied. After the Petitioner received photos of the attendance list, it was found out that the signatures of several voters in the list looked alike. Riki suspected that a voter had filled the list by themselves.

In response, Yusrial said on behalf of the KPU that the red marks in the SIREKAP could’ve been because not all data at all TPS had been inputted. He responded to the statement of the denial of the request for attendance list by saying that C result copy forms had been distributed to each of the witnesses at the PPS (polling committee) level but that attendance list cannot be given to witnesses based on a Regulation of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

At the hearing, the KPU of Solok Regency presented three witnesses: Yuda Saputra Wijaya, Isra Mitra, and Rahadian Asminda. “There were no reports, objections, or notes from the witnesses in the recapitulation report,” Yudi said. Meanwhile, KPPS (polling station working committee) chair of TPS 9 of Salayo Isra Mitra testified that all witnesses had signed the recapitulation report. He also refuted the Petitioner’s allegation and explained that no voters were prohibited from casting their vote on voting day.

Also read: Solok Regency KPU Denies Invalidation of Ballots

Expert’s Testimony

The Petitioner also presented expert Nelson Simanjuntak, who revealed that the violations during voting and vote counting could’ve been prevented by the KPU and Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) if from the beginning they’d realized the potential for such violations. He believed the KPU and Bawaslu should’ve been able to prevent the violations. However, if they keep occurring, the election organizer should take appropriate measures so that they wouldn’t strip voters of justice and delegitimize the election results.

“Bawaslu, who should’ve been monitoring, preventing, and mitigating [violations], only seemed to have acted as an electoral observer that noted what happened without making the efforts to investigate why those things had happened,” Simanjuntak said before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

The 2020 Solok regent election dispute case No. 77/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 was filed by Candidate Pair No. 1 Nofi Candra-Yulfradi. They earned 814 fewer votes than Candidate Pair No. 2 Epyardi Asda-Jon Firman Pandu (Relevant Party) based on the Solok Regency KPU’s vote counting certification.

In the petition, the Petitioner alleged that their votes had been reduced because the KPPS had destroyed a number of valid votes, making them invalid. They also alleged that the KPU didn’t show professionalism and that some voters had committed double voting. They also alleged that the total numbers of voters in the final voters list (DPT) in the recapitulation in Solok Regency for the 2020 West Sumatera governor election and that in the 2020 Solok regent election differed. They also believe there had been massive money politics as the Laskar Merah Putih mass organization was a symbol of the immunity of Candidate Pair No. 2 from law and the partiality of 74 heads of nagari.

Writer: Fuad Subhan
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
Uploader: Fuad Subhan

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti
Editor: NL
Managing Editor: Budi Wijayanto

Translation uploaded on 02/28/2021 18:45 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---