Nadiem Makarim's Chromebook case: two verdicts, a dissent and the policy question

Prosecutors asked for 18 years. The Jakarta Corruption Court gave former education minister Nadiem Makarim 10 years on 30 June 2026, and the Jakarta High Court cut that to 9 years on 24 September 2026. His restitution order fell from about Rp809.5 billion to about Rp548 billion, calculated as 35 percent of a state loss of about Rp1.57 trillion. One of the five first-instance judges said he should have been acquitted. Both the defence and the prosecution have now taken the case to the Supreme Court.

He is one of several ministers from the cabinet Joko Widodo swore in in October 2019 to be convicted of corruption, as our earlier analysis of verdicts records, but the central question in his case reaches beyond one person: when a ministry buys equipment under a policy a minister signed, how far does the minister's criminal responsibility extend? This analysis sets out what each court decided, the dissent, the cassation arguments and what the case means for policy decisions and procurement. It draws on our issue page, Chromebook procurement corruption case, and the profile of Nadiem Makarim.

The first-instance verdict

The Jakarta Corruption Court found that the primary charge was not proven and convicted Nadiem Makarim under the subsidiary charge, citing Article 604 of the new Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023) in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, CNBC Indonesia reported. It sentenced him to 10 years in prison and a Rp1 billion fine, and ordered restitution of about Rp809.5 billion, with 5 more years in prison if unpaid.

Prosecutors had sought 18 years, a Rp1 billion fine and restitution of about Rp809.6 billion plus about Rp4.87 trillion, CNBC Indonesia reported. They put the state loss at about Rp2.18 trillion: about Rp1.56 trillion linked to the ministry's education digitalisation programme and US$44.05 million, or about Rp621.3 billion, for Chrome Device Management licences they said were unnecessary, Katadata reported. They also alleged he received about Rp809.5 billion from PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa through PT Gojek Indonesia. The case covers Chromebook and licence procurement from 2019 to 2022.

Three other defendants were convicted at first instance, according to a Katadata summary: Mulyatsyah, a former director of junior secondary schools at the ministry, received 4.5 years; Sri Wahyuningsih, a former director of primary schools, 4 years; and Ibrahim Arief, a technology consultant to the ministry, 4 years. Each was fined Rp500 million.

The dissent

Judge Andi Saputra dissented and said Nadiem Makarim should be acquitted of all charges, Katadata, ANTARA and CNBC Indonesia reported. Katadata summarised four points:

• No unlawful act proven. He said no witness testified that the defendant received kickbacks from the laptop procurement. He accepted that prices were marked up, but attributed the kickbacks to collusion between procurement committee members and third parties.
• No abuse of authority. He said ministerial regulation No. 5 of 2021 applied nationally and was not tailored to Chrome, and that signing it did not establish criminal intent.
• No self-enrichment. He said Nadiem Makarim was a minority shareholder without voting rights in the Gojek holding company, and linked the Rp809 billion to Google's investment in Gojek rather than to the defendant.
• No conspiracy. He said the trial did not show that Nadiem Makarim met or directly intervened with the officials who carried out the procurement.

Andi Saputra also dissented, with a second judge, in Ibrahim Arief's case, according to Katadata. A dissent does not change the verdict, but it is part of the record the higher courts review.

The appeal ruling and restitution

The Jakarta High Court upheld the conviction on 24 September 2026 but reduced the sentence to 9 years, CNA Indonesia reported. It kept the Rp1 billion fine and cut restitution to about Rp548 billion, with 6 years in prison if unpaid.

The change came from how the court calculated loss. It set the state loss at Rp1,567,888,662,716.74, based on a calculation by the Development Finance Comptroller (BPKP), and charged 35 percent of it to Nadiem Makarim, whom it described as the main perpetrator, CNA Indonesia and Katadata reported. In apportioning the loss for restitution, the panel attributed 50 percent to Google LLC and 15 percent to suppliers, distributors and principals. Katadata reported that the panel doubted that the roughly Rp809 billion in transactions between PT Gojek Indonesia and PT Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa came from corruption.

The cassation

Prosecutors have filed a cassation appeal, Attorney General's Office spokesperson Anang Supriatna said on 14 October 2026, Metro TV reported. Nadiem Makarim's lawyers filed their cassation memorandum on 16 October 2026 against High Court ruling No. 41/Pid.Sus-TPK/2026/PT DKI, Okezone reported. They argue that the High Court:

• applied too broad a causal link, holding a minister liable for losses in a procurement run by commitment officers, procurement officials and working groups under Presidential Regulation No. 16 of 2018;
• found joint participation without explaining how shared intent was formed;
• imposed restitution although it doubted the Rp809.6 billion came from the procurement, and split the loss with Google, which was never examined at trial;
• adopted the first-instance reasoning without addressing the defence's objections to witness and expert evidence;
• rejected vendor statements of liability that, the defence says, required price differences to be refunded.

They ask the Supreme Court to annul the appeal ruling and declare him not guilty on both charges.

What it means for policy and procurement

The case tests where policy ends and procurement begins. The majority at both levels held that a minister whose policy shaped a purchase can be criminally liable as the main actor for losses in that purchase. The dissent and the defence argue that this stretches liability to anyone who signs a regulation, when procurement law assigns technical decisions to other officials. The High Court's apportionment, which assigns most of the loss to a company that was not a defendant, adds a further question about how restitution is calculated. The Supreme Court's answer will matter for officials deciding on large technology purchases.

What the record shows

• Two courts have convicted Nadiem Makarim of corruption under the subsidiary charge; the primary charge was not proven.
• His sentence fell from 10 to 9 years and his restitution from about Rp809.5 billion to about Rp548 billion.
• One of five first-instance judges dissented in full.
• The High Court adopted a BPKP loss figure of about Rp1.57 trillion, lower than the prosecution's Rp2.18 trillion.

What remains open

The Supreme Court has not ruled. This analysis relies on press reports of the rulings; the full written judgments would show the exact reasoning on causation and on apportioning the loss. The appeal outcomes for the three other defendants are not covered in the sources reviewed here.

What to watch

Watch for the Supreme Court's decision on both cassation appeals and whether it keeps the 35 percent apportionment. Our earlier analysis, From ministers to regents: Indonesia's corruption verdicts since 2019, places this case alongside other ministerial verdicts. Formal records are on the officials directory, connections on the intelligence page, and checked claims on the claims page.