The fallout from Jakarta governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama’s lawyers’ claim that they have evidence former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had influenced the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) to issue a blasphemy fatwa against the governor has been intense to say the least, with many sides now being drawn into a political battle, including President Joko Widodo.
SBY called a press conference afterwards to deny the accusation, and he invoked the infamous Watergate scandal when he warned Ahok and his legal team that they would have committed a crime if they wiretapped his phone.
SBY also implied that Ahok must’ve had help from Jokowi’s administration in securing the hypothetical wiretapped phone recording, which has now been vehemently denied by the government.
“Ask Ahok’s lawyers, was there ever a statement that mentioned anything about wiretapping? If that’s the case, then it’s illegal, but there was actually no talk of wiretapping,” presidential spokesman Johan Budi told reporters yesterday, as quoted by Kompas.
“Ask Pak SBY, was he really wiretapped? Who said he was? Ask whoever said it, don’t throw the issue to the president.”
Ahok’s lawyer, Humphrey Djemat, clarified that there was no mention of SBY’s phone being wiretapped during Ahok’s blasphemy hearing on Tuesday, when the issue was first mentioned.
“People should pay attention to what I said during the hearing. There was not even a little bit of mention of [phone] recordings, transcripts, or whatever it may be,” he said, as quoted by Tirto.
“I’ve been consistent from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean [we don’t have evidence] – we do. Evidence can take many forms, like a witness testimony.”
Could Humphrey be hinting that their team’s proof of SBY influencing the MUI came in the form of testimony from someone who overheard their conversation? Who could that be? Have they planted a mole in SBY’s inner circle all this time in anticipation of something like this?
Of course, it’s all highly speculative at this point, but it certainly makes for some very intriguing political drama. Frankly, it reminds us of the kind of betrayals, scandals and political maneuvering we’d expect to see on “Game of Thrones” (without all of the excessive nudity, violence, and public shaming – at least not yet). We’ll just have to patiently wait to see how the saga unfolds.
