Prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office have firmly defended their 18-year prison demand for former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Nadiem Anwar Makarim. They assert that the sentencing recommendation in the Chromebook procurement corruption case was systematically constructed based on valid legal evidence rather than mere opinion or public perception.
Prosecutor Roy Riady explained that every conclusion within the indictment serves as a comprehensive summary of trial facts, strongly supported by material evidence presented before the panel of judges.
“The sentencing demand was prepared systematically. It merges the indictment with facts that surfaced during the trial through verified evidence. I must emphasize that these are trial facts based on evidence, not based on perception or opinion,” Roy stated firmly following the hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Wednesday, May 13, 2026.
Riady highlighted the critical role of electronic evidence seized from the defendant’s technical team. According to the prosecution, digital documents and recorded conversations serve as undeniable “key evidence” confirming Nadiem’s direct involvement and instructions regarding the Chromebook project.
“People can lie, but electronic evidence does not. This is where we compare the actual facts. There is chat evidence from May 27 stating ‘based on the Minister’s direction.’ This implies that every meeting thereafter was a follow-up to the Minister’s specific instructions,” Riady continued.
Responding to Nadiem’s rebuttal regarding the Rp 5.6 trillion restitution (compensation) fee, the prosecution reminded the court that the principle of the reversal of the burden of proof applies in corruption cases. The prosecution argues that it is Nadiem’s responsibility to prove in court that his assets were not obtained through criminal acts.
“This is known as the reversal of the burden of proof. Mr. Nadiem should exercise his right and fulfill his obligation to prove whether his disproportionate wealth increase is the result of a crime. How did we prove our side? Through tax reports (SPT), wealth reports (LHKPN), and expert testimony,” he concluded.
Previously, the prosecution demanded that Nadiem Makarim be sentenced to 18 years in prison and a fine of Rp 1 billion, or an additional six months of confinement. Beyond the prison term, Nadiem is also required to pay a staggering Rp 5.6 trillion in restitution.
This massive figure includes alleged investment fund flows totaling Rp 809.5 billion and a suspicious wealth surge of Rp 4.8 trillion identified in his 2022 LHKPN and tax reports. Should the restitution fail to be paid, Nadiem faces an additional nine years of imprisonment.
In this case, Nadiem is accused of abusing his authority to favor the Chrome OS operating system to benefit a USD 786.99 million investment by Google into his own company. The prosecution estimates that these policies resulted in Rp 2.18 trillion in state financial losses, stemming from the overpricing of laptops and the procurement of Chrome Device Management (CDM) licenses that were deemed redundant and unusable in schools located in Indonesia’s most underdeveloped (3T) regions.
Summary
Prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office have defended their 18-year prison recommendation for former Minister Nadiem Makarim regarding the Chromebook procurement corruption case. They maintain that the sentencing demand is based on systematic trial facts and verifiable electronic evidence, rather than public opinion. Crucial digital documentation, including communications referencing the Minister’s direct instructions, serves as primary evidence of his alleged involvement in the project.
In addition to the prison term, prosecutors are seeking Rp 5.6 trillion in restitution, citing significant state losses and unexplained wealth. The prosecution emphasizes the principle of the reversal of the burden of proof, requiring Makarim to justify his financial assets. The defendant is accused of abusing his authority to favor Google’s investment, resulting in financial damages from overpriced procurement and redundant software licenses.