THE SHADOW NETWORK: BEHIND THE STATE WIRETAPPING SCANDAL - WHO COLLECTED, CONTROLLED, AND MAY HAVE EXPLOITED THE SECRETS OF INDONESIAN LEADERS?

THE SHADOW NETWORK: BEHIND THE STATE WIRETAPPING SCANDAL - WHO COLLECTED, CONTROLLED, AND MAY HAVE EXPLOITED THE SECRETS OF INDONESIAN LEADERS?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. A Scandal That Shakes the Institution: The designation of former National Police Chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo and two high-ranking police officers as suspects in the alleged illegal wiretapping of President Prabowo Subianto has exposed a deep wound in the governance of state security.

2. Abuse of the Legal System: The alleged wiretapping was carried out by inputting target phone numbers into the National Police's Lawful Interception Management System (LIMS) without the required verification. This activity allegedly took place between 2025 and 2026, without a valid legal basis for investigation or prosecution.

3. Unanswered Questions: To date, the actual motive, the chain of command, the parties who accessed the wiretapping results, and the potential transfer of data to external parties remain mysteries that must be answered through digital forensic investigation.

---

HOOK

In an institution that is supposed to be the protector of the state, surveillance technology was allegedly used to spy on its own leaders.

The case of alleged wiretapping involving former National Police Chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo is not just an ordinary criminal scandal. It is a call to dismantle a "shadow network" operating at the heart of power. When officials entrusted with safeguarding state secrets are alleged to have accessed the secrets of their leaders without due process, the issue is no longer just about who conducted the wiretapping. The question is: who watches the watchers?

---

FACT

1. Chronology of the Arrest

   The case was uncovered after an internal officer reported alleged illegal wiretapping and the deletion of electronic data on October 30, 2026. The Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim Polri) then examined 10 witnesses and three experts. The evidence seized included 11 mobile phones, 1 iPad, and 4 flash drives.

2. Modus Operandi: LIMS and the Deletion of Traces

   The suspects allegedly inputted a number of phone numbers into the LIMS system without the mandatory verification. These numbers were tapped without any connection to law enforcement proceedings. In October 2026, the suspects allegedly ordered the deletion of the wiretapping files to erase traces.

3. Broad and Strategic Targets

   The targets of the alleged wiretapping included President Prabowo, state officials, political figures, mass media, mass organizations, NGOs, and businesspeople. This indicates that the operation was not merely an "accident" or ordinary abuse of authority, but a systematic effort to collect sensitive information from various elements of power.

4. Legal Status of the Suspects

   The three suspects—Listyo Sigit Prabowo, Inspector General Ahrie Sonta Nasution (Head of the Legal Division of the National Police), and Inspector General Eko Hadi Santoso (Principal Widyaiswara of Sespim Lemdiklat Polri)—still retain the right to the presumption of innocence and the legal defense process. Another general, Inspector General Slamet Uliandi, remains a witness.

---

DOCUMENT

Document 1: Official Statement from Bareskrim Polri (November 3, 2026)

Head of Bareskrim Polri, Commissioner General Asep Safrudin, revealed that the wiretapping was conducted without following the procedures stipulated in National Police Regulation No. 5 of 2010. The suspects are charged under Article 258 of the Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023), Article 332 of the Criminal Code, and Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. Article 258 carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, though the application of the article and the final sentencing remain within the authority of the judicial process.

Document 2: Statement from the Presidential Palace (November 4, 2026)

State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi stated that President Prabowo was "deeply concerned" by the incident and assessed the wiretapping as "pointing towards treason" that endangers the safety of the head of state and national interests. However, this statement represents the government's political assessment; determining whether there is an element of treason must be based on evidence and applicable legal provisions.

Document 3: International Media Report (Reuters, November 4, 2026)

Reuters confirmed the arrest of three high-ranking police officers, including Listyo Sigit. Reuters noted that the motive for the wiretapping remains unknown and mentioned that Listyo was previously known to be a close associate of former President Joko Widodo. However, Reuters also emphasized that this political proximity does not prove any connection between Jokowi and the alleged wiretapping.

---

TRACE

Trace 1: The Chain of Command

The first question is who gave the initial order.

· Who approved the use of the LIMS system?

· Who inputted the phone numbers into the system?

· Who had the authority to activate the wiretap?

· Who read the wiretapping results?

· Who stored the recordings?

· Who ordered the deletion?

· Were there other parties who knew of or approved these activities?

  This chain of command must be examined to determine whether the alleged violation was an individual act or involved a broader organizational mechanism.

Trace 2: The Data Trail

Where were the wiretapping results stored?

· Was the data only on the LIMS server, or was it ever transferred to external devices?

· Are there copies of the data on other servers?

· Were there any downloading, sending, or file transfer activities?

  The seizure of electronic devices is an initial step. However, digital forensic examination is required to trace access history, metadata, system logs, and the potential transfer of data.

Trace 3: The Motive

Why was the information collected? Several possibilities must be tested:

1. Collecting information for political or power interests.

2. Establishing an information-gathering network outside official mechanisms.

3. Using information to influence official decisions.

4. Potential misuse of information for personal or group interests.

5. The possibility of transferring or handing over data to other parties.

   Until supporting evidence is found, all these possibilities must be treated as investigative hypotheses, not conclusions.

---

NUMBERS

Indicator Description

Suspects 3 individuals

Mobile phone evidence 11 units

Tablet evidence 1 iPad

External storage evidence 4 flash drives

Alleged activity period 2025–2026

Police report date October 30, 2026

Witnesses examined 10 individuals

Experts examined 3 individuals

Primary Source: Statement by the Head of Bareskrim Polri during a press conference on November 3, 2026.

---

CONNECTION: TESTING THE RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT ACCUSATION

The connection between surveillance technology and power is a matter of state governance. Information obtained through wiretapping can have strategic value, especially when it concerns the communications of high-ranking officials, government policies, political relationships, and economic decisions.

However, the strategic value of information does not prove that it was used for a specific interest.

There are three relationships that must be examined:

1. The relationship between authority and access: Who has the right to operate LIMS, and is that access in accordance with procedures?

2. The relationship between information collection and control: Who receives, stores, reads, and manages the wiretapping results?

3. The relationship between information and interests: Is there evidence that the wiretapping results were used to influence decisions, obtain profits, or handed over to other parties?

We must not establish the existence of a political or commercial network without evidence. However, these possibilities are worth testing through forensic examination, communications, documents, and data flows.

---

ANALYSIS (THINK TANK PERSPECTIVE)

First: LIMS and the Risk of Abuse of Authority

The lawful interception system enables the interception of communications within the legal framework. Because of its ability to access non-public information, such a system requires multi-layered security. The fundamental question is not just who operates the technology, but how the system controls the authority of its users. Audits must examine user access rights, approval mechanisms, system activity logs, the security of interception results, and data deletion mechanisms.

Second: The Unrevealed Motive and the Shadow of Politics

Motive is one of the most critical parts of an investigation. If the wiretapping was indeed conducted without a legal basis, investigators must still uncover the purpose of collecting the information. Past political relationships between the parties can provide context for understanding power dynamics, but cannot replace evidence regarding orders and individual involvement. Therefore, the investigation must rely on documents, communications, access logs, and digital evidence.

Third: Impact on Democracy and Press Freedom

The alleged wiretapping of journalists and civil society groups raises serious issues. If journalists' communications can be monitored without a valid legal basis, the protection of journalistic sources and press freedom can be threatened. The fear of surveillance without procedure also has the potential to create a chilling effect, causing the public to hesitate in voicing criticism or communicating with the media.

Fourth: The Risk of Information Trafficking and Data Leaks

One unanswered question is whether the wiretapping results were ever transferred or provided to parties outside the authorized user network. There is currently insufficient public evidence to state that the data was sold. However, investigators need to examine the possibility of recording copies outside official servers, file transfers to external devices, communications with receiving parties, and financial transactions related to data transfer.

---

📌 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Comprehensive Forensic Audit of LIMS: The government and authorized supervisory bodies must ensure an independent examination of the system, including access history, logs, user rights, and data deletion mechanisms.

2. External Oversight: The use of wiretapping technology must be supervised through an independent mechanism with clear authority, transparency, and accountability. The National Police Commission (Kompolnas) has urged a revision of National Police Regulation No. 5 of 2010, as the current oversight only positions the Head of Bareskrim as the primary supervisor.

3. Transparency in Law Enforcement: Investigators must provide periodic updates on the case without disrupting the investigation and without disclosing confidential information that could compromise the evidence.

4. Protection for Targeted Individuals: If there are individuals proven to be targets of illegal wiretapping, they must receive legal protection and access to the restoration of their rights in accordance with the provisions.

5. Protection of Digital Evidence: All relevant electronic devices and data must be preserved through accountable forensic procedures, including the recording of the chain of custody.

---

QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED

To Bareskrim Polri:

· Who gave the initial order?

· Who approved the use of LIMS?

· Who inputted the target phone numbers?

· Who has access to the wiretapping results?

· Are there other parties outside the three suspects involved?

· Did investigators find evidence of data transfer outside the National Police system?

To the Presidential Palace:

· What is the factual basis for the statement that this case potentially leads to treason?

· Is there a concrete threat to state security found in the investigation?

· How does the government guarantee that the legal process proceeds independently?

To the Government and Supervisory Bodies:

· Who has been overseeing the use of LIMS all this time?

· Has an independent audit of the system ever been conducted?

· How does the government ensure there is no misuse of surveillance technology against citizens?

· Is there a mechanism for notification and restoration of rights for parties proven to be victims of illegal wiretapping?

To the Public:

If state surveillance technology can be used without valid procedures, who will watch the watchers?

---

CONCLUSION

This alleged wiretapping case opens a much broader issue than the designation of three high-ranking police officers as suspects. It encompasses issues of authority, surveillance technology, information security, chain of command, and the accountability of state institutions.

The facts announced by investigators provide a starting point for further examination. However, the actual motive, the entire chain of command, the parties accessing the wiretapping results, and the potential transfer of data still need to be proven. There is insufficient basis to conclude that the information was sold or that a broader political network exists.

It is precisely these unanswered questions that must be the focus of the next investigation. Because, in a democratic country, surveillance technology must not turn into an instrument of power without oversight.

The state has the authority to maintain security. However, that authority must not stand above the law.

And the most fundamental question remains the same:

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS?

🦅CAKRANEGARA NEWS

DEFENDERS OF FACTS — ENLIGHTENING, NOT CONFUSING.