Indonesian prosecutors have sought an 18-year prison sentence for Nadiem Makarim, the founder of Gojek and former education minister, in connection with a corruption case involving Chromebook procurement. The demand, made on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, has sparked widespread backlash and ignited a debate over the treatment of technology innovators in public service.
Prosecutors allege that a Chromebook and Chrome OS procurement program conducted between 2020 and 2022 resulted in state losses of Rp2.21 trillion (US$125.64 million). They further accuse Makarim of personally benefiting by approximately Rp809 billion through the program.
Beyond the prison term, the prosecution is demanding restitution payments totaling Rp5.68 trillion, which consists of Rp4.87 trillion and Rp809.59 billion. If convicted, prosecutors have requested that the court place Makarim in immediate detention.
The Procurement Timeline
The case stems from a digitalization initiative designed to support remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, reports indicate that in 2018, the ministry had concluded that Chromebooks were unsuitable for broad use because many schools outside major cities lacked stable internet access.
Despite these concerns, the ministry proceeded with large-scale procurement projects worth trillions of rupiah between 2020 and 2022. This followed meetings between ministry officials and representatives from Google Indonesia and Google Asia Pacific.
Prosecutors argue that the procurement specifications were designed to favor Google’s Chrome ecosystem. They claim this narrowed competition and established Google as the dominant platform for Indonesia’s education technology infrastructure.
Aggravating Factors and Legal Disputes
At the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, prosecutors cited five aggravating factors to justify the heavy sentence. These include the failure to uphold anti-corruption reform, the triggering of major state losses, and allowing private interests to overlap with public policy regarding Google’s investment ties with Gojek.
The prosecution also pointed to assets they believe are disproportionate to official earnings and conduct they described as uncooperative during proceedings. The only mitigating factor acknowledged by prosecutors was that Makarim has no previous criminal history.
Legal scholars and policy experts have questioned the legal basis of the case. Critics argue the prosecution focuses on policy outcomes rather than direct evidence of embezzlement, noting a lack of proof regarding funds flowing into Makarim’s personal accounts or evidence of price inflation.
Makarim’s Response
Makarim described the charges as “emotionally devastating” and “extremely disappointing.” He argued that when restitution is factored in, he is effectively being charged with 27 years—eighteen years of prison plus nine years related to restitution.
“Why is my sentencing demand heavier than that of a murderer? Heavier than a terrorist?” Makarim asked reporters. He also disputed the restitution calculations, claiming they were based on the peak valuation of his assets during an IPO rather than his actual wealth at the end of his term, which he stated was not even Rp500 billion.
His lawyer, Ari Yusuf Amir, has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that prosecutors ignored evidence presented during the trial that could have aided the defense.
Broader Implications for Innovation
The severity of the demand has led to online comparisons with other high-profile cases. Observers noted that the effective punishment sought against Makarim is higher than the 15 years received by e-KTP corruption defendant Setya Novanto or the 12 years given to former social affairs minister Juliari Batubara.
Members of Indonesia’s technology sector and younger professional class fear this could send a “chilling signal” to talented individuals. We find concerns that unconventional policymaking could expose future officials to criminal prosecution if results become politically controversial.
Former trade minister Tom Lembong warned that the case could negatively affect investor sentiment toward the technology sector. Speaking on the Akbar Faizal Uncensored podcast, Lembong noted that foreign investors are closely watching the proceedings, describing the legal construction of the case as “too chaotic, too absurd.”
A verdict in the case is expected in June.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the total financial demand made by prosecutors?
Prosecutors have demanded restitution payments totaling Rp5.68 trillion, in addition to alleging that the procurement program caused Rp2.21 trillion in state losses.
Why do critics argue the case is controversial?
Critics and legal scholars argue the case is centered on policy outcomes rather than direct evidence of embezzlement, noting that prosecutors have not publicly shown funds flowing into Makarim’s personal accounts or evidence of procurement markups.
What was the alleged conflict of interest mentioned by prosecutors?
Prosecutors cited the overlap of private interests and public policy, specifically referring to Google’s investment ties with Gojek before and during the procurement period.
Do you believe that unsuccessful policy decisions should be treated as criminal corruption if they result in state financial losses?
