REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA -- The defendant on religious blasphemy case, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok), argued there was misunderstanding on the objection he stated towards the testimony of the Chairman of Indonesian Council of Ulama(MUI), KH Ma’ruf Amin, during the eighth session of the trial on Tuesday. Previously, it was spread on news that Ahok objected his testimony and said to conduct a legal action towards Kiai Ma’ruf. 

"Oh, this would be difficult when you did not want to compete on your vision and mission program, then you brought into such conflict. Who I wanted to make report was the complainant witness,” he said during his visit to Marunda, Cilincing, North Jakarta, on Wednesday.

Related to the testimony, Ahok said Kiai Ma’ruf had given a clear statement. He had clearly admitted for making mistakes in the police investigation report. "He (Kiai Ma’ruf) admitted there was a mistake on the ‘date’,” ucapnya. 

He added, joining the eight sessions of his trial made him understand the trial processes where the lawyer tried to find conformity between the police investigation report and the witness’s testimony. Different statements, he said, was not a mistake as far as the witness admitted it. 

“So I’ve experience in joining a trial. When you were called by the judges, you write A in the investigator report. But when in the trial you said B, it might be questioned ‘why’. The judges would ask you which the right statement. Could you correct it on the trial? Yes. It was not a mistake when in the trial you admitted you have made false statement. It was ok, no problem,” said Ahok. 

Also read: Ahok accuses KH Ma’ruf Amin is lying

On the same occasion, Ahok also highlighted the presence of Kiai Ma’ruf in the trial. He argued that the prosecutors should not present him because he was too old. The same protest was also delivered on the presence of the commissioner of the General Election Commission (KPU), Dahliah Umar. 

"The prosecutor invited (KH Ma’ruf Amin) resembled to the invitation to KPU. So we should differentiate them with the complainant witness. Kiai Ma’ruf was not a complainant witness. He was not a fact witness as well, but the public prosecutor was eager to know why there was MUI’s fatwa, resemble to why he (procecutor) invited KPU DKI," he explained.

According to Ahok, the invitation to both the witnesses was an effort of the public prosecutors to explore any material to strengthen the conviction. "Of course my lawyer also tried to dig information so that I could be free from the accusation. Of course, in the dialog there would be questions, it did not mean to dishonored,” he said.

Ikuti Whatsapp Channel Republika