Nadiem Makarim Legal Team Responds to Court Absence, Alleges Coercion in Chromebook Case

Prosecutors in Jakarta expressed regret over the absence of Nadiem Anwar Makarim’s legal team at a trial hearing concerning alleged corruption in the procurement of Chromebook laptops and Chrome Device Management systems, stating that the failure to attend constituted contempt of court.

The legal team of the former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology collectively failed to appear at the trial held at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Wednesday, April 22, 2026. Prosecutor Roy Riady stated that the absence, in their view, violated judicial principles and amounted to an insult to the judiciary.

“Of course, this absence, in our view, constitutes contempt of court, violating the principles of the judicial process that we should all adhere to. Whatever happens—delays or otherwise—there must be attendance at the trial; that’s how it should be,” said prosecutor Roy after the hearing.

Prosecutors emphasized that the trial must proceed according to applicable legal provisions and that all objections should be raised within the courtroom. They described the absence as unprofessionalism on the part of the lawyers involved in the case.

“The absence of even one legal counsel from today’s trial agenda constitutes unprofessionalism on the part of the lawyers in the case of the Defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim,” prosecutor Roy added.

The case centers on allegations that Nadiem Makarim enriched himself in connection with the procurement of more than 1.2 million Chromebook laptops during his tenure as education minister from 2019 to 2024. Prosecutors allege the purchase caused state losses of Rp2.1 trillion and that Makarim received approximately 809 billion rupiah ($48.2 million) in connection with the program.

Former Google executives have previously testified that the company’s investment in Indonesia’s GoTo was not linked to the Education Ministry’s decision to procure Chromebooks during the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging a central claim by prosecutors in the trial.