Peradi and KAI Signal a Peace With the Signing of an MoU

In his speech, Mr. Tumpa expressed his delight over seeing the resolution of the conflict between Peradi and KAI. He said that a single bar association, citing the single bar associations in America and Japan as examples, will result in a bar association that is more solid – implicitly asserting that multiple bar associations inevitably lead to the opposite outcome.

Mr. Tumpa stressed that the Supreme Court will continue to advocate the position that there should be only one bar association. 

The Chief Justice also took the opportunity to inform all Chief Justice at the High Courts, as the judicial body has authorized, to start taking oaths of candidate advocates who have passed the bar exam. “In relation to the obligation of High Court Chief Justices to take advocate oaths, I instruct all High Court Chief Justices to immediately facilitate advocates taking their oaths, and declare Peradi as the legitimate bar association” he stated.

Therefore, Mr. Tumpa urged the legal community not to be goaded into taking exams organized by bar associations that are not recognized by the government.

Naming Issues

The signing ceremony had to be delayed because of clauses that have not been fully agreed upon. At the time of signing, a number of members of KAI demanded that the text be read out prior to the signing. Nonetheless, these demands were ignored by Mr. Lubis.

The opposition stemmed from the MoU’s wording, which specified that the joint bar association will bear the Peradi name. In effect implying that KAI would be effectively merged into Peradi. The concerns were further inflamed by the fact that Mr. Tumpa has announced in his speech and interviews with a number of reporters that the text of the MoU lists Peradi as the sole resulting bar association. Vice President of KAI, Tommy Sihotang, however attempted to calm the fears, saying that “the Peradi name has been crossed out of the manuscript.”

Mr. Hasibuan on the other hand argued that the MoU still listed Peradi as the sole resulting bar association. “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court spoke to the effect,” he added. Although the reference to the Peradi name was removed from the MoU by Mr. Sihotang, Mr. Hasibuan was adamant that this does not change the situation. “The MoU has been signed by Mr. Lubis, and although he crossed out the Peradi name, I have added it back in,” he explained.

In fact, the name and the new bar association will be determined through the Joint National Meeting of Indonesian Advocates, which is to be held in 2012 at the latest. This is consistent with the recommendation of the team that was set up to consolidate the disputed advocate organizations (Tim Perumus Kesepakatan Bersama dalam Rangka Penyatuan Organisasi Advokat) two months ago (16/4). “The selection of a name, and the election of leadership will be determined by the National Conference,” asserted Mr. Sihotang.

This has raised the issue of which bar members’ oaths will presently be accepted by the courts. Mr. Harifin stated that the oaths’ of Peradi members must be accepted, while in relation to KAI he commented that “this has now become an internal matter for them.”

Mr. Sihotang said that prior to the formation of a single bar association through the National Meeting, all lawyers’ oaths must be accepted. “You are wrong if you heard [the Chief Justice say] that Peradi advocates are the only advocates that could be sworn-in,” he added.

Internal KAI Matters

The management of KAI is split into two opposing camps, namely, Mr. Lubis with the Abdul Rahim Hasibuan, on one side, and, on the other side, Eggi Sudjana and Roberto Hutagalung.

As a consequence, the signing of this MoU is not fully accepted by Mr. Sudjana and Mr. Hutagalung’s side, who claimed to be carrying out the duties of the President of KAI. Mr. Sudjana questioned the competence of Mr. Lubis and added, via telephone, that “he was not authorized to act on behalf of KAI.”

According to Mr. Sudjana, internal conflicts should be resolved before acting on behalf of the organization. Mr Sudjana claimed to have sent a letter to the Supreme Court regarding this matter. “But there has been no response from the Supreme Court,” he added. Consequently, he expressly rejected the MoU and called it a one-sided agreement. He also told hukumonline that he is currently planning to create a new Congress of Advocates, which will accommodate all advocates’ interests.

Agus Sahbani / Ali S. Harahap / Filipp Levin