Key Discussion: Internal Ombudsman Conflict Sparks Concern Over Dominance and Disrespect
Key Discussion has brought to light significant internal tensions within the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia (ORI), which have become a focal point for scrutiny during the 2021-2026 term. Prof Jimly Asshiddiqie, the chairperson of the Ethics Council of ORI, highlighted that the current leadership structure has faced the most substantial challenges, with disputes affecting the decision-making process and public perception. The issue, which has been simmering for months, has now reached a critical stage, prompting calls for structural reforms and a more balanced approach to governance within the organization.
Leadership Dynamics Under Scrutiny
During the tenure of Mokhammad Najih, the head of the Ombudsman, the internal dynamics have been particularly contentious. Jimly emphasized that one member’s assertive behavior has led to concerns about the concentration of power and the potential marginalization of other voices. “There is an individual who is overly dominant in their role, effectively shaping decisions independently and often speaking on behalf of the entire institution,” Jimly stated in a press conference at the Ombudsman RI building in Jakarta on Friday, May 29, 2026. This dominance, he argued, has created an imbalance in the collaborative spirit that the Ombudsman is meant to embody.
“This behavior not only disrupts the internal harmony but also undermines the trust that the public places in the Ombudsman’s ability to act impartially. The key discussion surrounding this issue reveals a deeper problem: the lack of checks and balances within the leadership framework,” Jimly added, underscoring the need for a more transparent and equitable process.
Another pressing concern raised by Jimly is the tendency of some members to display unprofessional conduct during meetings. He pointed out that their habit of shouting in assemblies contradicts the decorum expected in formal discussions. “It is important to address these issues, as they reflect a broader culture of impatience and disrespect, which can hinder the effectiveness of the key discussion on institutional reform,” he noted. While he did not name specific individuals, the allegations have sparked a wider debate about the conduct of those in positions of authority.
Proposed Reforms to Strengthen Institutional Integrity
Jimly suggested that the key discussion should focus on establishing a more permanent Ethics Council to ensure continuous oversight. He argued that the current structure, which operates as a temporary committee, lacks the mechanisms necessary to address grievances effectively. “If there is a dedicated body for monitoring ethical standards, it would be easier to identify and rectify issues at the grassroots level. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that the leadership itself is held accountable, which requires a more robust reporting system,” he explained.
“The key discussion must also involve legislative action to formalize the role of the Ethics Council as an independent entity. This would not only enhance the Ombudsman’s credibility but also provide a framework for addressing conflicts proactively,” Jimly stated. His proposal aligns with broader efforts to modernize the Ombudsman’s operational model, ensuring that it remains relevant and responsive to the needs of society.
Meneger Nasution, a member of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Council, echoed Jimly’s sentiments, emphasizing the urgency of revising internal regulations through legislative processes. “With the key discussion on the Ombudsman’s framework in the Prolegnas, this is an opportune moment to introduce permanent oversight mechanisms. A permanent Ethics Council would ensure that decisions are made transparently and that all members, including the leadership, are equally accountable,” Nasution remarked. His comments underscore the growing consensus that structural changes are essential to prevent future disputes and maintain the institution’s integrity.
Furthermore, the key discussion has highlighted the need for greater public engagement in the Ombudsman’s operations. Jimly pointed out that the current system often operates in isolation, with minimal input from external stakeholders. “The Ombudsman must become a more open institution, where the key discussion on policy decisions is accessible to the public. This transparency will not only foster trust but also allow for a more inclusive approach to addressing grievances,” he said. By involving legislators and civil society, the Ombudsman can strengthen its role as a guardian of public interest.
As the key discussion continues, the Ombudsman faces the dual challenge of resolving internal conflicts while reinforcing its commitment to ethical governance. Jimly and Nasution’s calls for reform have been met with cautious optimism, with some members of the Ethics Council advocating for immediate action. However, others remain divided on the extent of the problem, arguing that the issues are more about individual behavior than systemic flaws. Despite these differences, the consensus is clear: the Ombudsman must adapt to maintain its effectiveness in the face of growing public demands for accountability.