A Forgery Investigation? Inside the Explosive Claims Against Jokowi's University Degree

In a direct appeal to Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto, a high-stakes legal and political controversy surrounding the authenticity of former President Joko Widodo's university credentials has been thrust into the public spotlight. At the center of the storm are Dr. Tifa, former minister Roy Suryo, and activist Rismanipa, who have detailed what they assert is forensic proof of forgery in a public press conference. They claim this public appeal is a last resort, born from a sense of legal discrimination in the case brought against them.

These are not vague accusations; they are specific, technical claims that challenge the very foundation of the former president's academic history. Facing charges themselves while, they claim, other suspects in the case remain unexamined, the group has taken their evidence to the court of public opinion. This article breaks down the four core allegations they are making, providing clarity on the specific details of their claims regarding the diploma, the academic transcript, and the integrity of the legal process itself.

1. The Case of the Contradictory Stamp Duty Seals

The most "ceto welo-welo" (blatantly obvious) piece of evidence, according to Dr. Tifa, lies with the materai, or stamp duty seal, affixed to the university diploma. This claim centers on a direct, visual comparison between a document presented as a genuine diploma from the same university and year, and the one attributed to Joko Widodo.

The specific allegation is this: A verified diploma from Gadjah Mada University's (UGM) Faculty of Forestry, issued in May 1985, bears a red Rp500 materai. This is consistent with the stamp duty law of 1985. However, the diploma attributed to Joko Widodo, allegedly issued in November of that same year, features a green Rp100 materai. Dr. Tifa frames this as a logical impossibility, posing the rhetorical question: why would the legally required value of a stamp duty seal decrease over the course of the same calendar year?

2. Two Different Versions of the Same Diploma?

Adding another layer to the controversy is the allegation that at least two different versions of Joko Widodo's diploma have been presented publicly. The existence of multiple, differing versions of a single foundational document, the accusers argue, inherently raises serious questions about its authenticity.

The two versions described are:

• Version 1: A diploma posted online by an individual named Dian Sandi Utama on April 1, 2025. Dr. Tifa claims this version has no embossment on it.
• Version 2: A different version shown directly to Dr. Tifa and her colleagues during a special hearing on December 15, 2025. This document reportedly had a faint and indistinct (samar-samar) embossment.

The central point of this claim is that a single, official document should not exist in multiple, inconsistent forms, especially when the key security features differ between them.

3. Forensic Flags: A "Printed" Embossment and an Irregular Transcript

The allegations move into more technical, forensic details regarding the diploma's security features and the accompanying academic transcript.

The Embossment Dr. Tifa explains that a university embossment is not merely a decorative element but a functional security feature, describing it as a "cap to lock the signature." This means the official signature must be applied to the document first, followed by the embossment pressed over it—a sequence she claims "can be proven with a digital forensic test."

A comparison was made between the diploma shown in the hearing and a genuine 1985 UGM diploma. The genuine document allegedly has a tangible, high-relief embossment described with the term "ceklok" (meaning "cetak tinggi" or raised print) that can be physically felt. In contrast, the embossment on the diploma shown to them appeared to be a "printing" of an emboss, rather than a true, physically raised seal.

The Transcript The group also claims that the academic transcript of grades released by the police is a forgery. The reason cited is that its format is a complete departure from the mandatory, standardized format for all UGM Forestry graduates in 1985, a format they claim to possess for comparison. Based on this discrepancy, Dr. Tifa states with 99.9% certainty that the transcript is fake. These points, combined with an assertion that the thesis is also fraudulent, form the basis of their conclusion that Joko Widodo never graduated as a UGM Forestry scholar.

4. An Unequal System: Accusations of Legal Discrimination

The public appeal is driven by what Dr. Tifa and her colleagues describe as a biased and "panicked" legal process, which they connect directly to their appeal for intervention from President Prabowo. They allege they are experiencing "inequality before the law" and point to specific procedural contradictions to support their claim.

They state that out of eight individuals named as suspects, only they—Dr. Tifa, Roy Suryo, and Rismanipa—are being actively processed by law enforcement, while the other five have not been examined. Critically, they highlight a timeline they see as proof of police incompetence: their case files were transferred to the prosecutor's office on January 12, 2026, yet their own requested witnesses were only scheduled to be called for testimony later, on January 20, 2026.

Dr. Tifa analyzes these actions as a sign of confusion and panic. In a direct message to the National Police Chief, she uses a powerful metaphor to describe the state's allegedly rushed and incomplete case.

"Do not give a carbide-ripened mango, a mango that is still raw but forced to ripen, to the prosecutor's office... What will happen is a back-and-forth ping-pong... because the prosecutor's office will surely return the file to the police."

She further argues this legal "ping-pong" is not just unjust, but a costly waste of state funds and taxpayer money.

Conclusion: A Final Thought on Trust and Transparency

The allegations laid out by Dr. Tifa and her colleagues are remarkably specific, focusing on forensic details, document versions, and procedural law. As part of their public appeal to President Prabowo, they have demanded transparency, citing a total of 709 documents related to the case. With police having already released about 55 of them, they are demanding access to the remaining 564 for independent review.

With a case built on such specific claims of forensic irregularity and legal malpractice, the appeal to the nation's highest offices places the burden of proof—and public trust—squarely on the institutions they lead. The path forward for ensuring transparency and maintaining faith in both the legal and political systems now hangs in the balance.