Indonesian fugitive Paulus Tannos expected to testify in hearing over extradition, case adjourned to August

CNA

8 hours ago

SINGAPORE: The first tranche of Indonesian fugitive Paulus Tannos' hearing over his extradition concluded on Wednesday (Jun 25) with his fate still in the balance.
The former businessman is currently held on remand while the state and his lawyers battle over whether Tannos is liable to be surrendered to Indonesia.
As Tannos' case is the first under the new extradition treaty between Singapore and Indonesia, the court has been deciding its next steps for the hearing every step of the way, but more light was shed on Wednesday about Tannos' case against his extradition.
The 70-year-old – also known as Tjhin Thian Po – is wanted in Indonesia over his involvement in a high-profile graft case related to the country's electronic ID project, referred to as the e-KTP project.
He is said to have bribed officials in relation to the project, with the resulting scandal causing the country about 2.3 trillion rupiah (US$140 million) in losses.
A Singapore permanent resident, Tannos has lived in Singapore since 2017 and was arrested on Jan 17 this year by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) over the alleged graft in Indonesia, which is said to have occurred between 2010 and 2013.
Tannos has repeatedly declined to be surrendered to Indonesia, resulting in the current hearing.
On Wednesday morning, Tannos' lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh of BMS Law wrapped up his cross-examination of the state's only witness, CPIB chief special investigator Alvin Tang.
Mr Singh focused his questions on the events before Tannos' arrest, including asking whether Mr Tang was aware that Tannos had been interviewed by Indonesian police in 2012. Mr Tang replied that he was not aware.
"I'm told he was interviewed by the police arising out of the report by the vendor of certain goods in a commercial dispute he had in 2012 in Indonesia," said Mr Singh. Mr Tang repeated that he was unaware.
Mr Singh also asked if Mr Tang knew why Tannos' family left Indonesia, and the CPIB officer said he had read this detail in an affidavit.
The lawyer then claimed that some people had invaded Tannos' house in Indonesia, and asked Mr Tang if he had bothered to find out if this was true. Mr Tang replied that he had not.
The state did not re-examine Mr Tang, who was released from the witness stand before lunch.
Parties then turned to the issue of who Tannos would be calling as witnesses and in what sequence.
Mr Singh told the court that there would be four witnesses on his side, including Tannos himself.
The other three are:
1. An expert from Australia who can testify to the state of Indonesia's judiciary and political scene
2. An Indonesian law expert with expertise in criminal law
3. An Indonesian lawyer who will be a factual witness
Mr Singh said the Indonesian lawyer will be called to "give evidence on certain alarming events that took place in the course of all these happenings".
When asked by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan to clarify what he meant by the phrase "all these happenings", Mr Singh said he referred to events that began with the start of the e-KTP project in 2010.
He added that the Indonesian law expert would be able to tell the court why Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission (also known as KPK) requested to interview Tannos and record a statement from him as a suspect.
"He will tell us the impact of the absence of such an interview and statement," Mr Singh said.
The state then raised its concerns on the order of witnesses to be called, pointing out the potential risk of Tannos "tailoring" his evidence should he be called after the other witnesses.
EXCEPTIONS
Another lawyer for Tannos, Mr Suang Wijaya from law firm Eugene Thuraisingam, pointed to specific exceptions set out in the extradition treaty that Tannos will be relying on to contest his extradition.
These include how extradition may be refused where it would be "unjust, oppressive or too severe a punishment to extradite the fugitive".
Mr Suang Wijaya also referred the court to two sub-sections that could apply in his client's case.
These include how extradition may be refused if it were for the purpose of "prosecuting or punishing the person sought on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinions".
Another sub-section states that extradition can be refused if the fugitive may be "prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions".
Tannos' hearing will resume on Aug 7, with parties expected to argue about the relevancy of the witnesses and in what order they should testify.
The court directed both the state and Tannos' lawyers to put in written submissions to assist the court before the resumption.