KPK-AGO in Nadiem’s Case

COMPETITION between the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) over the investigation into the alleged corruption by Nadiem Makarim shows that the leaders of both institutions have big egos. Given that the subject is the same, the investigations into the Minister of Education, Culture, Research and Technology in Joko Widodo’s cabinet should be combined under one institution.

The KPK and the AGO are both investigating alleged corruption over procurement for the Education Ministry from 2020 to 2022. On September 4, 2025, the AGO named Nadiem a suspect for alleged corruption in relation to the supply of Chromebook laptops. At the same time, the KPK is investigating alleged corruption in relation to the procurement of cloud computing service Google Cloud.

These two investigations should be handled by one institution to avoid overlap. The procurement of Google Cloud and Chromebook laptops are inseparable parts of the same package. The project began during the pandemic when students had to stay at home and study through distance learning. It is the same subject, and even the people are the same, as are the witnesses being questioned by the AGO and the KPK.

The KPK has the authority to coordinate and supervise other law enforcement institutions, including the Attorney General’s Office. If the KPK coordinated with the AGO, the investigation of the two cases could use the Indonesian legal principle of concursus (one individual commits more than one criminal act). But it appears that neither institution wants to leave the stage.

The KPK Law states that the AGO is obliged to inform and coordinate with the KPK regarding corruption investigations it is handling. So, the question is, how could these two corruption cases end up being handled by two different institutions?

This kind of rivalry has occurred in a number of other cases. For example, in March 2024, the KPK suddenly started an investigation into alleged corruption over loan payments at the Indonesian Export Financing Agency only a day after Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati reported the case to the AGO.

What is happening between the AGO and the KPK? Are the two institutions only vying for the stage, or are they implementing a hidden agenda?

What is more, the details of the corruption cases that the sides are competing to investigate are still not clear, such as the supply of laptops and cloud computing at the Education Ministry. Neither the AGO nor the KPK has explained the exact methods allegedly used in the corruption cases they are investigating.

So far, the AGO has only charged Nadiem with “enriching himself or other individuals/corporations.” This is based on Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law, which is often used by law enforcement agencies to legally challenge policies. In the matter of Nadiem, neither the AGO nor the KPK has any evidence that he personally benefited from the purchase of the laptops or the Google data storage.

The two law enforcement agencies should coordinate in order to obtain convincing evidence to back up their charges against Nadiem Makarim and other suspects. This rivalry will make it more technically difficult to find such evidence. And the investigation by two institutions also disadvantages the suspects, for example in the technical matters of defense in court. However, in a legal sense, they have not been proven guilty, which means that they have a right to defend themselves.