Jakarta, 8 January 2024 — The verdict in the criminalisation case against human rights defenders Fatia Maulidiyanti (Coordinator of KontraS/Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence 2020-2023) and Haris Azhar (Co-founder of Lokataru Foundation) finally arrived after months of anticipation. Since early morning, an unnecessarily heavy security presence surrounded the East Jakarta District Court, with troops in full gear and tactical vehicles filling the surrounding streets. Units from the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Police, East Jakarta Resort Police, and even Cakung sectoral officers, including Mobile Brigade, Directorate of Security for Vital Objects, and even Bhayangkara Samapta and Indonesian Army troops, surrounded the courthouse in what many saw as a blatant excessive display of force for a non-violent case, as an act not following the Indonesian Police Regulation No. 1 of 2009.
Previously, indictments were read by the public prosecutors where it underlined the fulfilment of criminal components to Haris Azhar under Article 27(3) and Article 45(3) of the Electronic Information and Transaction Law (EIT Law) as well as Article 55 (1) of the Criminal Code, punishable by four years and 1 million Rupiah fine or six months imprisonment, in conjunction with other relevant articles. The indictment also pointed out the four years and 1 million Rupiah as a subsidiary to 6 months of imprisonment. The prosecutors also demanded the removal of the incriminating YouTube video. Maulidiyanti faced similar charges and a potential 3-year, 6-month sentence.
The case was filed by Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, the Coordinating Minister of Maritime and Investment Affairs, on 22 September 2021 against Fatia Maulidiyanti and Haris Azhar following claims made on a YouTube channel discussing a report of mining operations in Intan Jaya, Papua, involving national and multinational companies, including entities potentially linked to political figures.
In a surprising turn of events, the presiding judge announced a simultaneous verdict reading for both defendants, highlighting key points without a full recitation. In the reading, the panel of judges acknowledged the intertwined nature of Article 27 Paragraph 3 with Constitutional Court rulings and the Joint Ministerial Decree (SKB) on Guidelines for the Implementation of the Information and Electronic Transaction law. Further, the judges deemed neither the term “Lord” nor Fatia’s statement “So we are also villains” as constituting defamation.
Specifically in the ‘So it can be considered to be involved in the mining activity in Papua’ sentence, the judge assessed this as proven and undeniable since PT Tobacom Del Mandiri (PT TDM) is indeed a subsidiary to PT Toba Sejahtera where it has 99% of share by Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, where this is also aligned to the business exploration in Papua. The judge added that within the article components, none was proven that the defendants violated Article 27 Paragraph 3 regarding defamation or stated in the first indictment.
Furthermore, the judge addressed Article 14 of Law No. 1 of 1946, concerning hoaxes. Based on correspondence between Paulus Prananto, PT MQ, and West Wits Mining for the Darewo project, he determined that PT Toba is the Beneficiary Owner (BO). Therefore, the statements made by Fatia and Haris, based on research by a civil society coalition, were not considered hoaxes. Additionally, the judge ruled that the podcast title, “There is Lord Luhut Behind the Military Operations in Papua,” did not constitute false news, rendering the second indictment unfulfilled.
Article 15 of the same law, regarding chaos and its relevance to the criminal code, was also addressed in the second subsidiary indictment. The Australia Stock Exchange evidence confirmed a business exploration between PT TDM and West Wits Mining. As PT TDM is a subsidiary of PT Toba Sejahtera, Luhut directly benefits from this venture through regular financial reports. Consequently, this article was also deemed inapplicable.
Similarly, for Article 311 of the Criminal Code, the third indictment in this case, the panel of judges elaborated on the existing elements. They concluded that Fatia and Haris’ actions did not violate Luhut’s honour or good name, as their statements were grounded in fact. Therefore, the offence outlined in this article was also not fulfilled.
This verdict, in the words of Muhammad Isnur from the Advocacy Team for Democracy, “sends a powerful message that we must continue to criticise, speak out, and express opinions. Democracy and freedom of expression have triumphed today.” The initial aim of the podcast, Isnur added, was “to help Papuans facing ongoing violence and human rights abuses.”
Arif Maulana, another member of the Advocacy Team, echoed this sentiment, noting that the court’s recognition of the civil society coalition’s research as accurate strengthens the case against potential conflicts of interest. “If we truly want equal laws,” Maulana stressed, “the police must investigate the mining business activities of Luhut’s company.” Though this verdict offers hope for democracy, Maulana remains cautious, urging the Supreme Court to uphold its principles should the prosecution appeal the decision.
(the Bahasa Indonesia version of this release can be accessed on KontraS’ webpage here: https://kontras.org/2024/01/08/kita-menang-fatia-dan-haris-menang-orang-asli-papua-menang-putusan-bebas-untuk-fatia-dan-haris-merupakan-angin-segar-serta-harapan-bagi-demokrasi/)
Contact Persons
Nurkholis Hidayat, Asfinawati, Muhammad Isnur, Arif Maulana (Advocacy Team for Democracy)