It’s almost a months since the ball started rolling concerning the scandalous decision made by Yamani, and it’s rolling even faster. The Judicial Comission has begun tracking the decisions of the Supreme Court which they deem odd. This step is necessary in order to provide a sense of justice to the people because Yamani didn’t make just one bizarre decision but many. Therefore the Judicial Commission considers it urgent to thoroughly examine all the decisions made by the Supreme Court.
Imam Anshori Saleh, who is the vice chairman the Judicial Commission explained. “We found at least more than five irregular decisions and most of them are connected to drug-related cases”
Imam added that the Judicial Commission needs the help from the people to report any irregular decisions made by the Supreme Court. “The investigation on Hanky was also started from the report by the people”.
Anand Ashram Sympathizers’ Community Once Reported Judge Yamani to the Judicial Commission
Prasant Gangtani, the spokesperson of KPAA (Anand Ashram Sympathizers’ Community) said that he once reported Justice Yamani to the Judicial Commission for the overturning of Anand Krishna, his father’s, acquittal. The overturning is deemed injurious to the law.
“This report has been received by the Judicial Commission with the Report Number 2597/XI/2012/P,” Prashant said.
The granting of the Prosecutor Martha Berliana Tobing’s appeal by Yamani and his fellow judges is very odd because the decision contains a decision related to a case about brand infringement dispute.
“In the copy of the decision made Yamani and his fellow judges the judges consider “That the evidence for Judex Juris regarding the ignorance of the Panel of Judges of the High Court of West Java regarding the legal facts contained in our criminal charges can be seen in the decision made by Judex Facti Number Number 20/Pid / 2006/PT.Bdg dated 21 April 2006 made by the Panel of Judges of the High Court of West Java. Meanwhile the case number 20/Pid/2006/PT.Bdg dated 21 April 2006 is a case about brand infringement with Erik Mulya Wijaya as the defendant,” said Prasant
