The Case of Connie Rahakundini Bakrie Reaches Polda Metro Jaya, Unaware of Being Summoned by the Police

Kapanlagi.com - Connie Rahakundini Bakrie, a prominent academic and military analyst in Indonesia, is now in the spotlight after being summoned by Polda Metro Jaya. The 60-year-old woman is suspected of being involved in the spread of hoax information related to the 2024 elections. This controversy began with her statement criticizing the police's access to the Sirekap application, which had previously sparked various reactions during the presidential election preparations.

Although Connie has apologized and clarified her statement, the police summons continues. This situation raises questions among observers, who suspect a connection to the ongoing political dynamics.

To better understand this case, here is the complete chronology of the controversy involving Connie Bakrie, starting from the post that sparked the debate about Sirekap to her summons by Polda Metro Jaya, as summarized by Liputan6 on Tuesday (3/12).

1. The Beginning of the Case

This case emerged after Connie uploaded a controversial statement on her Instagram account in March 2024, where she claimed that the police had access to the Recapitulation Information System (Sirekap) application and could fill out the C1 form directly from the police station. The claim referred to a statement made by former Deputy Chief of Police, Commissioner General Oegroseno, during an informal meeting, but this statement quickly sparked controversy and raised doubts about the integrity of the 2024 elections. Shortly after her post went viral, Connie faced legal consequences with two official reports filed with the Metro Jaya Police, complete with screenshot evidence and a flash drive containing related data, registered on March 20, 2024, with clear report numbers.

2. Connie's Clarification and Apology

In response to the circulating reports, Connie quickly provided clarification through her social media account, explaining that her statement was misinterpreted and was merely a casual quote from Commissioner General Oegroseno's discussion. She also expressed her apologies if the statement caused misunderstandings among the public. Although this clarification was made publicly, the legal process continued. Connie emphasized that there was no intention to spread false information or damage the reputation of the related institutions. Connie's actions received support from various parties who argued that the case was not strong enough to be taken to the legal realm.

3. Summons by Polda Metro Jaya

On November 29, 2024, Polda Metro Jaya sent an official summons letter to Connie, who was then far away in Russia fulfilling her duties as a Professor at St. Petersburg University. With a tone full of astonishment, Connie expressed that she was unaware of and did not receive the summons while in Indonesia in October and November. The sudden summons through her lawyer a day before the scheduled examination seemed strange to her, given that returning to Indonesia from Russia takes considerable time, making it impossible for her to comply with the summons. She also questioned the urgency of this case, emphasizing that she had provided clarification and there was no strong evidence showing that she had directly harmed others.

4. Response from PDIP and Allegations of Criminalization

PDIP, through the firm voice of the Chairman of the DPP for National Legal System Reform, Ronny Talapessy, expressed suspicion that Connie's summons contains glaring elements of criminalization. Ronny argued that this step is closely related to Connie's political stance, especially the sharp criticism she made in a podcast regarding the 2024 elections. In this context, PDIP is committed to supporting Connie, aware of allegations that this case may be exploited for certain interests. Ronny emphasized the importance of upholding justice, so that no individual feels pressured by their political views. PDIP's stance adds a more complex political layer to a case that has drawn attention from various circles.

5. The Polemic of the Case and Its Implications for Freedom of Expression

The Connie case has sparked a deeper debate regarding freedom of expression in Indonesia, particularly in the political and electoral realm. Many observers argue that if such informal discussion statements continue to be brought into the legal arena, it could set a bad precedent for society. For Connie, this situation is a test of her integrity and courage as an academic who dares to speak out. The support flowing in from various circles indicates that there is still hope to question the relevance of this case in the context of freedom of expression. However, the legal process continues and will determine whether this case has a strong enough legal basis to proceed.

6. What caused Connie Rahakundini Bakrie to be summoned by the Metro Jaya Police?

Connie is currently under the spotlight after being summoned by the authorities regarding allegations of spreading false information claiming police access to the Sirekap application. This incident has triggered various speculations and heated discussions among the public, adding tension to an already sensitive situation.

7. How did Connie respond to this summons?

Connie has provided clarification and apologized, but she also expressed her astonishment at the urgency of the summons, considering she feels she had previously explained her statements clearly.

8. What is PDIP's role in this case?

PDIP suspects that there is an attempt at criminalization related to Connie's summons, and they are firmly committed to providing solid legal assistance. They are determined to protect Connie's rights in facing this situation, showing full support to their member amidst the escalating dynamics.

9. What is the Sirekap application mentioned in this case?

Sirekap, or the Recapitulation Information System, is presented as an advanced innovation that will make it easier for us to witness the aggregate results of the 2024 election vote counting. With Sirekap, every counted vote will be integrated transparently and efficiently, providing a clear and accurate picture of our democratic journey.

10. Does this case impact freedom of expression?

Some parties are concerned that if this informal discussion is brought to the legal realm, the freedom of expression that has been highly valued could be threatened.

(kpl/ank)