Inside Indonesia’s trial of Gojek founder: How a Google laptop deal became a multi-billion-rupiah case

[JAKARTA] Indonesia’s high-profile trial of former education minister and Gojek co-founder Nadiem Makarim is shaping up to be more than a corruption case, with investors and technology leaders watching it as a test of where flawed policymaking could cross into criminal liability.

The allegations relate to a programme to procure 1.2 million laptops for schools during his 2019 to 2022 tenure as education minister. Nadiem founded Gojek, now part of GoTo Group, before entering government.

Prosecutors said the programme caused significant state losses and favoured devices running Google’s operating system.

What lies at the heart of the case?

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the education ministry, then led by Nadiem, launched a major digitalisation programme to accelerate the use of technology in classrooms by distributing laptops to schools across the archipelago.

However, doubts over the programme emerged in May last year, when Indonesia’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) began investigating the procurement process.

In an indictment read in court, prosecutors said that the ministry procured about 1.2 million Chromebook laptops between 2020 and 2022, with a total budget estimated at around 10 trillion rupiah (S$740 million), despite earlier internal recommendations favouring devices using Microsoft Windows.

They alleged that Nadiem carried out the procurement in a manner that deviated from the original plan and violated established public procurement principles.

Investigators also alleged that some vendors sold the laptops to the government at inflated prices, contributing to estimated state losses of more than 2.18 trillion rupiah.

When the charges were slapped

The case escalated on Sep 4, when AGO announced that Nadiem had been formally named a suspect and detained in connection with the investigation.

SEE ALSO

Rethinking corruption eradication in Indonesia

Gojek co-founder Nadiem Makarim named as suspect in Indonesia’s laptop graft case

Prosecutors also named four other suspects, including Ibrahim Arief, a former vice-president at Bukalapak, who at the time was serving as a consultant to the Ministry of Education on its digitalisation programme.

Prosecutors further alleged that the procurement process was manipulated in ways that benefited certain suppliers and promoted the adoption of ChromeOS devices across the national education system.

Nadiem, 41, has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In a statement posted on his LinkedIn account, which is now managed by his legal team following his detention, he said he was “innocent of all charges” and rejected accusations that he had caused financial losses to the state.

At a media briefing in Jakarta on Wednesday (Apr 22), Nadiem’s legal counsel Ari Yusuf Amir, raised concerns about his client’s health, saying doctors have advised him to undergo medical treatment.

The trial is expected to reach a verdict in May – roughly eight months since his detention.

Spotlight on Google deal

One of the most controversial aspects of the case centres on alleged links between the Chromebook procurement and investments by US tech giant Google.

During the first hearing in January, prosecutors alleged Nadiem had set requirements that effectively matched only Google’s operating system, which they claimed was aimed at making the company “the sole controller of the education ecosystem in Indonesia”.

Prosecutors also alleged that Google provided payments amounting to about 809 billion rupiah to the ministry.

They alleged that the payments were connected to the government’s decision to adopt ChromeOS devices for schools. They further pointed to what they described as a potential link between the procurement project and Google’s investment in Gojek.

Google invested in Gojek between 2017 and 2021, with total funding of about US$786 million over that period.

The Chromebook procurement proceeded despite a 2018 internal ministry review, which found that the devices require stable internet connectivity to function effectively.

Prosecutors told the court that the programme moved forward after Nadiem allegedly held several meetings in 2020 with representatives from Google Asia Pacific and Google Indonesia, a claim Nadiem has denied in court.

At a hearing on Monday, former Google Asia-Pacific executives called as witnesses rejected the allegations in their testimony. Those who appeared included Caesar Sengupta, former vice-president of Google Asia Pacific, and Scott Beaumont, its former president – both of whom testified via video conference from Google’s office in Singapore.

Sengupta told the court that Google was a minority investor in companies linked to Indonesia’s technology ecosystem and did not control corporate or government policy decisions.

He also rejected claims that Google’s investment activity was connected to the Chromebook procurement. “There was absolutely no relationship between Google’s investment and government policy on the use of ChromeOS,” he said, adding that the claim of 809 billion rupiah in payments was “not true and does not reflect what we did”.

Beaumont echoed this, telling the court there had never been any request from the Indonesian government for investment or payment in connection with the Chromebook policy.

From startup icon to graft defendant

The case has drawn attention to Indonesia’s broader struggle with procurement-related corruption, which has long been a significant source of state losses. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has identified goods and services procurement as one of the most common areas linked to corruption cases.

While the trial itself centres on the details of the country’s procurement procedures, it has attracted wider, global attention because of Nadiem’s unique background.

Before entering government, the Singapore-born entrepreneur was widely seen as a leading figure in Indonesia’s startup boom.

He co-founded Gojek, one of South-east Asia’s most valuable technology companies, before joining former president Joko Widodo’s cabinet as education minister. At the time, his appointment was widely viewed as a sign that Indonesia was opening its bureaucracy to leaders from the technology sector.

Analysts said the case is now being read through different lens. For a country seeking to position itself as a regional technology hub, the trial could carry implications on how entrepreneurs and professionals view public service and policy risk.

Beyond the courtroom

Achmad Hidayat, an economist and public policy expert at UPN Veteran Jakarta, said the case had unsettled parts of Indonesia’s technology diaspora and some investors because, in his view, it suggested that policy decisions could later become the subject of criminal proceedings.

“What investors and technology professionals see is not merely a legal case,” Hidayat said. “They see a signal that controversial policy decisions in Indonesia can easily turn into criminal risk.”

In many innovation-driven sectors, he noted, policy experimentation is often necessary. “If every flawed decision is interpreted through a criminal lens, what emerges is not good governance but a bureaucracy paralysed by fear.”

Some foreign investors have expressed similar concerns about the clarity of Indonesia’s legal framework.

Analysts said Nadiem’s case highlights broader risks that investors and executives may face when dealing with government-linked projects in Indonesia, particularly when policies are later reviewed under new political leadership.

Leigh McKiernon, founder and president director of advisory firm StratEx, said the laws are generally sound on paper, but their interpretation can shift with politics.

“While the legal framework makes sense on paper, there is a history of people believing they were operating within the law but later finding themselves in hot water,” he said.

Another high-profile case is that of Thomas Lembong, a former trade minister under Widodo. Lembong was accused in 2024 of corruption linked to raw sugar imports during his 2015 to 2017 tenure, although court proceedings did not show he had personally benefited from the policy.

For investors, McKiernon said, that kind of uncertainty can affect capital flows. Despite these concerns, he stressed that Indonesia remains one of South-east Asia’s largest and most attractive markets.

Even so, he advised foreign investors to adopt a more cautious approach when entering partnerships with government entities and work with experienced local legal advisers who understand Indonesia’s regulatory environment and political dynamics. “Companies should also conduct thorough due diligence,” he said.