Richard Lee's Trial Heats Up, Legal Counsel Highlights Content of Two Witnesses' Statements

Kapanlagi.com - The trial involving Doctor Richard Lee resumed heatedly at the Tangerang District Court on Monday (27/7/2026). Richard Lee's legal team highlighted the content of the examination report (BAP) from two witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor, as it was considered to contain statements beyond their capacity as factual witnesses.

The two witnesses examined in the trial were Enung Hasanah, an administrative staff member of Dr. Samira or Doktif, and Dr. Nanang. Richard Lee's legal counsel, Tony RM, repeatedly posed questions to test the witnesses' knowledge regarding the content of the BAP they had signed.

1. Legal Counsel Questions the Source of Information in the BAP

Tony RM first directed questions to Enung Hasanah. He assessed that the content of Enung's BAP contained various technical explanations, ranging from medical terms, regulations on medical devices, to the scientific names of materials in products, which he deemed unusual for an administrative staff member to explain.

When asked to explain where that knowledge came from, Enung admitted that some of the information was obtained from Dr. Samira.

"I was informed by Doctor Samira," said Enung Hasanah in front of the panel of judges.

This admission then drew the attention of Richard Lee's legal team, who questioned the independence of the witness's testimony during the investigation process.

In the same examination, Enung also explained the process of purchasing the White Tomato product that was used as evidence. She explained that the product was purchased through Doctor's Shopee account, but the shipment was made under the name of Dr. Samira's driver, Maftuhi, from a third-party seller account named Gerabas Shop.

Tony RM then read the content of BAP Number 37, which discusses the alleged losses suffered by the reporter. Enung confirmed the contents of the document.

"There are no material losses personally for Dr. Samira," said Enung.

She also stated that the purchased product was only used for research purposes and was never used or consumed.

2. Witness Acknowledges Presence as Fact Witness, Not Expert

The next examination shifted to Dr. Nanang. In this session, Tony RM highlighted a statement in the BAP mentioning that the action of relabeling or affixing new stickers on products violates BPOM Regulation Number 21 of 2022 and the Health Law.

According to Tony, Dr. Nanang was present in the trial as a fact witness and therefore does not have the authority to provide legal opinions like an expert witness.

After receiving several questions, Dr. Nanang eventually reaffirmed his capacity in the trial.

"Currently, I am called as a witness (fact), not as an expert witness," said Dr. Nanang.

The atmosphere in the courtroom became tense when Tony RM reminded the witness about the oath under the Qur'an and the legal consequences of providing false testimony. This statement was immediately responded to by Dr. Nanang, who requested protection from the panel of judges.

"Do not make my religious beliefs a commodity for courtroom debate," said Dr. Nanang.

The panel of judges then requested both parties to maintain the proceedings in a conducive manner and to focus on the witness examination. The trial of the alleged violation related to product labeling involving Richard Lee is scheduled to continue with the next witness examination agenda.

(kpl/gtr)