A new suspect has emerged in Indonesia’s investigation into alleged interception of communications involving President Prabowo Subianto. At a November 5 briefing, police accused a fourth senior official of approving surveillance and the deletion of digital records. The allegations are not court findings. On November 6, the government publicly urged transparency in the legal process. The development turns attention from the identities of suspects to a harder institutional question: when an agency can authorize secret surveillance, who verifies the authority behind each request, and who protects the evidence if the agency’s own leaders come under investigation?

A fourth suspect changes the questions investigators must answer

Indonesian police on November 5 named a fourth suspect in an investigation into alleged unauthorized interception of communications involving President Prabowo Subianto and others. Police identified the official by the initials SU; Indonesian outlet detikNews identified him as Slamet Uliandi. Cybercrime director Suhermanto alleged that SU had an approval role in interception activity and the subsequent deletion of files. The designation is an investigative step, not a judicial finding that either act occurred as alleged.

According to the police account carried by ANTARA, SU had served as head of a monitoring unit between 2010 and 2019 and later held an advisory role linked to the Criminal Investigation Agency’s monitoring center. He had also headed the National Police’s information-technology division from 2021 to 2026. Investigators allege that two other suspects, identified as AS and EH, sought his permission before initiating interception procedures. Police further allege that AS requested approval in early October 2026 to delete interception results and that SU agreed.

The account describes what investigators believe an internal permission chain looked like. It does not provide the underlying authorization requests, independent technical records or a court-tested account of any individual’s actions. Reuters independently reported the addition of SU on November 6. Four people have been identified as suspects; no conviction is reported in the sources reviewed.

Sources: Polri sebut tersangka SU berikan izin penyadapan ilegal Presiden · Polri Tetapkan Irjen Slamet Uliandi Tersangka Baru Penyadapan Ilegal Prabowo · Indonesia names fourth senior police officer as wiretapping suspect amid deepening political rifts

What the authorities say was missing

Police allege that interception took place during 2025 and 2026 without the request documents or police case reports normally associated with an investigation, and without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The alleged targets extended beyond the president to other officials, politicians, media figures, civic organizations and businesspeople. That is a description of the investigation’s scope, not independent proof that each purported target was monitored or that communications were successfully captured.

Indonesia’s interception systems have legitimate investigative functions, but the existence of technical access does not settle the legality of a specific use. Authorization by a senior colleague is not automatically the authorization required by law. The questions for any legal review are who initiated each request, what legal basis was recorded, whether the approved scope and duration were limited, and whether an independent authority could inspect the decision afterward.

Sources: Polri sebut tersangka SU berikan izin penyadapan ilegal Presiden · Indonesia names fourth senior police officer as wiretapping suspect amid deepening political rifts · Peran 4 Jenderal dalam Kasus Dugaan Penyadapan Presiden Prabowo

Why deletion allegations matter beyond the recordings

The second accusation concerns electronic evidence. Investigators say that files associated with the interception activity were deleted in October and that SU approved the removal. Those claims have not been tested in court. A deletion allegation is especially consequential because records may be needed to establish not only whether interception occurred, but also who requested it, who granted access and when the activity stopped.

An audit trail can include a request identifier, operator credentials, time stamps, target entries, approvals and later modifications. Such entries are not the same as the contents of a conversation. Conversely, a missing record is not proof that no communication was intercepted: systems can have backups, external operator logs and other sources of corroboration. Whether any of those exist here is not established in the public material reviewed.

A defensible investigation must preserve relevant electronic material under a documented chain of custody and let independent examiners test its integrity. That is an accountability benchmark, not a claim that police have already performed or failed a specific forensic procedure. A case about surveillance cannot be resolved merely by accepting a verbal description of what a monitoring system supposedly recorded.

Sources: Polri sebut tersangka SU berikan izin penyadapan ilegal Presiden · Polri: Tersangka penyadapan LSP, AS, dan EH ditahan di Mako Brimob · Presiden Prabowo Prihatin atas Dugaan Penyadapan terhadap Kepala Negara dan Sejumlah Tokoh

Three detained, one not: the procedural distinctions

The three earlier suspects, identified as LSP, AS and EH, were being held at the Mobile Brigade detention facility in Depok, police said on November 5. SU had not been detained because he was recovering from a stroke, according to Suhermanto. The distinction is about custody status. It does not imply that the fourth suspect was cleared, that the other three were found guilty or that medical information proves anything about the alleged offense.

Domestic reporting identifies LSP as former national police chief Listyo Sigit Prabowo, who was removed from his post as presidential chief of staff on November 4. The presidential secretariat confirmed that personnel decision. Removing an official from government office is not the same as obtaining a criminal conviction. The allegations against all four require evidence, an opportunity for the defense to respond and independent judicial scrutiny.

Police reported having questioned 13 witnesses and five experts by the November 5 briefing. An internal special investigation team has also been reported. These steps show that investigators are gathering evidence, but they do not answer whether any separate supervisory or judicial institution will review the handling of interception authorizations. For a case involving police leaders, that distinction bears directly on public confidence.

Sources: Polri: Tersangka penyadapan LSP, AS, dan EH ditahan di Mako Brimob · Indonesia names fourth senior police officer as wiretapping suspect amid deepening political rifts · Presiden Prabowo Prihatin atas Dugaan Penyadapan terhadap Kepala Negara dan Sejumlah Tokoh · Istana terus waspada dan bersih-bersih usai ada penyadapan ilegal

The government calls for transparency, while motive remains open

A new statement on Friday, November 6, put transparency explicitly on the government’s agenda. State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi urged law-enforcement officers to proceed in accordance with the law and not conceal the legal process, ANTARA reported. The remarks followed earlier palace statements that President Prabowo had called for an objective investigation. They are requests for a process, not evidence that an independent oversight mechanism has already been established.

The investigation has unfolded amid political tension involving Prabowo, former president Joko Widodo and people associated with both administrations. That context makes the allegations highly sensitive. But neither a personal association nor a political disagreement proves who may have directed alleged interception, why a particular number was entered into a system or who received any information. Police have not established a motive in a court-tested record.

Sources: Indonesia names fourth senior police officer as wiretapping suspect amid deepening political rifts · Presiden Prabowo Prihatin atas Dugaan Penyadapan terhadap Kepala Negara dan Sejumlah Tokoh · Istana terus waspada dan bersih-bersih usai ada penyadapan ilegal

What independent oversight would need to reveal

There are two distinct accountability tracks. A criminal case asks whether identified defendants committed chargeable acts and whether admissible evidence proves them beyond the applicable legal standard. An institutional review asks why an interception system could be used or its records altered without triggering controls capable of producing an independently reviewable trail. One inquiry cannot automatically substitute for the other.

A credible public accounting would distinguish requests that had proper legal authority from those police say did not. It would describe how long relevant data are retained, who can authorize access or deletion, whether logs can be recovered after attempted removal, and what outside review is available. Necessary secrecy around actual investigative targets can coexist with public disclosure of governance rules and the results of appropriately limited audits.

Affected individuals also need some realistic route to challenge misuse, subject to lawful protections for ongoing cases. None of these safeguards can be assumed to exist or to have failed solely from the present police briefing. For now, the verified development is a fourth suspect and a specific allegation about approval and deletion. The larger test is whether independent scrutiny can make extraordinary investigative powers answerable to law.

Sources: Polri sebut tersangka SU berikan izin penyadapan ilegal Presiden · Polri: Tersangka penyadapan LSP, AS, dan EH ditahan di Mako Brimob · Indonesia names fourth senior police officer as wiretapping suspect amid deepening political rifts · Istana terus waspada dan bersih-bersih usai ada penyadapan ilegal · Peran 4 Jenderal dalam Kasus Dugaan Penyadapan Presiden Prabowo