Palembang, The Indonesia Post – Inspector General Rony Samtana has officially assumed the position of South Sumatra Regional Police Chief. However, such a role inevitably entails significant responsibilities—one of which is “cleaning house” within the South Sumatra Regional Police force.

Miftah, a coordinator from the Palembang Legal Aid Institute (LBH Palembang), stated that this aligns with the vision and mission of the new National Police Chief, General Suyudi Ario Seto, who has launched the “Police with the Community” program. “And let us start with the individual officer M. Safik, who serves at the Prabumulih City Police,” he said following a protest in front of the South Sumatra Regional Police headquarters this morning.

Accompanied by his colleagues Mahendra and Akbar, Miftah explained that the officer in question had acted dishonestly regarding a criminal fraud case involving former South Sumatra Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) member H. Eddy Rianto, SH.

He explained that, from the outset, M. Safik allegedly engaged in the deliberate fabrication, manipulation, and suppression of evidence.

First, he continued, the investigating officer deliberately omitted evidence regarding money transfers from the defendant to the complainant. Consequently, a matter that was originally a civil debt dispute was transformed into a criminal case, as the evidence of debt repayments made prior to the police report was excluded and not entered into the record as evidence.

Second, regarding the criminal law expert witness Dr. Sri Sulastri, S.H., M.Hum., the investigating officer M. Safik deliberately provided only a case summary and a single piece of evidence—a receipt for a capital or business loan. He failed to provide the necessary context and two pieces of evidence from the defendant: proof of money transfers totaling IDR 350 million made to the complainant. Third, when called as a witness at the hearing at the Prabumulih District Court on July 21, 2026, the individual provided false testimony by claiming that the defendant had demanded an additional IDR 200 million from the complainant, Romadonsyah, and that this sum had been transferred to the defendant’s account. In reality, however, no such transfer ever took place; this was confirmed by the defendant’s bank statement. Compounding the issue, this testimony was given without any supporting evidence.

Fourth, the trial proceedings revealed that the investigating officer, M. Safik, had prepared official records of the witnesses’ sworn statements—documents signed by both the witnesses and the investigator.

Miftah further remarked that such conduct does not reflect the behavior of a police officer possessing integrity and professionalism. On the contrary, allowing such individuals to act this way could tarnish the police force’s image and undermine the institution’s professionalism.

Consequently, he urged the Regional Police’s Internal Affairs Division (Propam) to immediately investigate the actions of the Prabumulih Resort Police investigator in question. “If Propam fails to uncover the issues we have raised, it raises the suspicion—or at least the strong possibility—that Propam is shielding a rogue officer. If that is the case, how can the police earn public trust in line with the National Police Chief’s vision and mission?” he asserted.

Furthermore, Miftah highlighted a separate case involving violations of the ITE Law (Electronic Information and Transactions Law) and defamation, which the defendant had reported to the Prabumulih Resort Police. Despite the identity of the accused being clearly established, the case has remained at a standstill.

“Even though this case previously garnered attention from national television networks, it has gone completely quiet. There has been no progress in the four months since it was reported; what is actually happening? We must not let this case damage the image of the National Police,” he questioned.

He added that the issue regarding the investigator’s lack of impartiality has been reported to the South Sumatra Regional Police (Polda Sumsel), and there is an expectation that it will be handled swiftly and decisively, with a commitment to transparency and integrity.

“This matter involves not only the code of ethics but also potential criminal offenses. Now we wait to see what Propam uncovers—or doesn’t. We await the follow-up,” he remarked pointedly. (rys/bbs)