Nine MK Judges Reported to MKMK for Alleged Ethics Violations in 2024 Regional Election Dispute Hearing
In a shocking development, nine judges from the Constitutional Court (MK) have been reported to the Ethics Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) for suspected violations of the code of ethics and conduct while handling disputes over the results of the 2024 regional elections.
The report was filed by Delpedro Marhaen, the Executive Director of Lokataru Foundation, on Wednesday, January 14, 2025. He revealed that the violations were related to principles of competence, fairness, wisdom, and prudence.
### Allegations of Anomalies and Mismanagement
Delpedro highlighted the presence of anomalies and maladministration during the Determination of Relevant Parties process, particularly in the Judges’ Deliberation Meeting (RPH) held on January 6 and 14, 2025.
During the RPH on January 6, 2025, the determination of Relevant Parties was carried out on the same day as the registration, which lasted from 08:00 AM to 09:00 PM. This swift decision-making process raised doubts about the judges’ ability to thoroughly and objectively examine over 310 Relevant Party applications.
### Time Constraints and Oversight
“With an overwhelming 310 cases of regional election disputes at the MK, it is impossible for the judges to review the applications thoroughly and objectively within such a limited timeframe,” explained Delpedro in his statement on Tuesday, November 21, 2025.
Furthermore, instances of maladministration were also uncovered in the determination of Relevant Parties. Out of the 11 applications submitted by Lokataru, five of them did not receive acceptance or rejection decisions until January 16, 2025, following the second RPH held on January 14, 2025. This delay exceeded the deadline specified in Article 28 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 3 of 2024.
As the investigation into these serious allegations unfolds, the integrity and transparency of the judicial process at the Constitutional Court face renewed scrutiny. The outcome of this report to the Ethics Council of the Constitutional Court will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the credibility of the judiciary in handling future electoral disputes.
