Document - Indonesia: Journalists' sentences increased as media restrictions continue

Indonesia: Journalists’ sentences increased as media restrictions continue

INDONESIA

Journalists’ sentences increased as media restrictions continue

People may be detained only if they express their ideas with physical violence Marzuki Darusman, member of Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission1

Introduction

In April 1995, Amnesty International published a report outlining its concerns on 

continuing restrictions on freedom of expression and association in Indonesia and 

the unwillingness of the Indonesian Government to tolerate peaceful political opposition².

The report highlighted the arrests of four individuals, whom Amnesty International 

considers to be prisoners of conscience, detained simply for exercising their

fundamental right to freedom of expression and association guaranteed under 

Indonesia's own Constitution and international human rights standards. The four

are: Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi, journalists from Aliansi Jurnalis Independen, 

the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI)³, an AJI office worker, Danang 

Kukuh Wardoyo and Tri Agus Susanto, journalist and activist with the Pijar 

Foundation⁴.

In a clear sign of the government’s attitude towards press freedom in Indonesia, all four 

were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 20 months to two years and eight

months in September. On 24 November, their lawyers were informed that the

sentences against Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi had been increased by four 

months to three years.

This report details the trials and sentencing of all four and also focuses on

continuing restrictions on individuals peacefully exercising their right to 

freedom of expression and association. It also looks at continuing restrictions on the

media and recent legal developments concerning freedom of expression and

association in Indonesia. The report concludes with recommendations to the 

Indonesian Government which Amnesty International believes, if implemented, would 

ensure that citizens are free to exercise their guaranteed right to freedom of expression 

and association, without fear of arrest and imprisonment.

1. PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCESENTENCED

1.1 Tri Agus Susanto

9ddddPdd@ddddPdd@9

An activist with the Pijar Foundation, Tri Agus Susanto was arrested on 9 March, 

following a raid on the organisation's offices. During the raid documents and 

computer diskettes were confiscated by the police. Another member of Pijar arrested at

the same time, Syahrul, was released without charge on 11 March. The official reason 

for the arrest was a speech concerning press freedom made by leading human rights 

lawyer, Adnan Buyung Nasution, the contents of which were printed in the June 1994 

edition of Pijar's magazine, Kabar Dari Pijar (News from Pijar). However, 

Amnesty International believes that the real reason for the arrests was to restrict

the activities of a non-governmental organisation which was concerned with issues that

the government considered sensitive. Tri Agus Susanto was charged under Articles 134 

and 55(1) of Indonesia's Criminal Code. The first, although not usually described as 

one of Indonesia’s so-called “Hate-sowing Articles”⁵, it punishes "insulting the Head of 

State" by up to six years' imprisonment. The second stipulates that although a person

may not have been directly involved in a crime, if they were present at the crime then 

they may be liable to the same punishment as the person who committed the crime. 

The prosecution's accusation against him related solely to the speech covered by 

Pijar's magazine, and contained no comments by Tri Agus himself.

Tri Agus was tried in July under heavy security in the courtroom. On 11 September he

was found guilty of "insulting the Head of State" under Article 134 and sentenced to 

two years' in prison, and in November the sentence was upheld on appeal. Pijar's 

Director, Nuku Soleiman, is already serving four years in prison for a similar 

offence. Amnesty International also considers him to be a prisoner of conscience held

for his peaceful activities. His "crime" was to distribute brochures during a

demonstration in 1993.

1.2 AJI journalists and office worker

Ahmad Taufik and Danang Kukuh Wardoyo were among seven people arrested on 16 

March at around 9.30 pm when they attended a function at the Wisata Hotel in

Central Jakarta. The occasion was a celebration of the end of the Muslim fasting 

month of Ramadan (Halal Bihalal). Eko Maryadi was arrested on the same night 

during a police raid on the offices of AJI, where he was staying. All except for Danang 

were released from police custody after about three hours. However, around 3 am the

next morning, Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi were both rearrested and taken into 

police custody where they joined Danang.

The three were arrested without warrants and held at Jakarta Police Headquarters 

where interrogations began. The initial accusation against them was that an 

unlicensed journal, Independen - an AJI publication - was being sold illegally at the

Wisata Hotel during the celebration. The accusations were later expanded to 

cover the content of articles in the magazine. These related to articles concerning the 

family of the Minister of Information, Harmoko, who are share-holders in a 

number of publications and his power to grant or revoke publishing licences and 

another article concerning the presidential succession. It was clear however that, 

coming a week after the raid on Pijar's office, the arrests were part of an attempt 

by the government to restrict further the activities of independent journalists 

and non-governmental organisations. Since the founding of AJI, journalists associated 

with the organisation had been dismissed or threatened with dismissal by employees

who are under pressure from the authorities not to employ AJI members. The AJI 

publication had become increasingly popular, despite the fact that it was operating 

without an official license.

The charges against the three related primarily to their alleged acts of "insulting the
government", demonstrating an unwillingness on the part of the government to tolerate independent journalism. They were all charged under two of the "Hate-sowing Articles"; Article 154 of the Criminal Code carries a maximum sentence of seven years
imprisonment for "...the public expression of feelings of hostility, hatred or contempt
toward the government..." and Article 155 carries a maximum sentence of four years and
six months imprisonment for a similar offence They were also charged under Articles
55(1) and 134 of the Criminal Code.

Dozens of peaceful protestors have been jailed as prisoners of conscience under 

these articles and are serving prison sentences for peaceful activities such as 

disseminating information about human rights violations and organizing 

demonstrations. Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi were also charged under Articles

19(1) of the Press Law. Article 19(1) states that the press must not be used to further 

the interests of any individual or group and is punishable with a maximum sentence 

of four years or a fine.

Political trials in Indonesia are commonly characterised by unfairness. The presence of

large numbers of plain-clothed and uniformed police and military officers 

ensures an atmosphere of intimidation in the court. Statements by the authorities 

implying a presumption of guilt are frequently made, judges often refuse to allow 

witnesses for the defence to appear, defendants are under pressure not to

appoint independent lawyers, and access for independent lawyers to defendants is 

commonly restricted. The result is that, in the overwhelming majority of political 

trials, a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion.

The trials of Danang Kukuh Wardoyo, Eko Maryadi and Ahmad Taufik, held at the 

Central District Court in Jakarta in June 1995, were no exception to other unfair 

political trials in Indonesia. Elements of unfairness and irregularities in their arrest

and interrogation included:

▸the search of the AJI offices, carried out without a warrant and with only one other 

witness present, was in breach of Article 33 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal 

Procedure (KUHAP);

▸the three were arrested without warrants or authorization, in contravention of Article 

18 of the KUHAP;

▸the defendants were forced to give evidence against each other, leaving them at 

risk of incriminating themselves.

Inconsistencies in their trials included:

▸the refusal by the court to consider procedural errors which had occurred during 

the arrests and interrogations, including the facts concerning the unlawful nature 

of the arrests and interrogation;

▸the fact that the basis for the charges, articles from Independen, the now banned

AJI publication, had in some cases not been written by the defendants;

▸the fact that during the trial itself, little evidence was presented to support the 

reason for the arrest or charges being brought against the defendants;

▸the high military and intelligence presence during the trial, resulting in an 

atmosphere of intimidation;

▸the fact that access to the defendants was restricted by the court and 

international observers from the human rights organisation, Article 19, were refused 

access to the defendants.

In September 1995, Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi were found guilty of “insulting 

the government” and both were sentenced to two years and eight 

months imprisonment.⁶Danang Kukuh Wardoyo was also found guilty of "insulting 

the government" and sentenced to twenty months' imprisonment. The sentencing 

prompted one member of Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission - Komisi 

Nasional Hak Azasi Manusia (Komnas HAM) - to express concern for the 

imprisonment of Danang Kukuh Wardoyo, who was not even a member of AJI and 

had not been involved in the production of the organisation's magazine. Komnas 

HAM member, Clementino Dos Reis Amaral, stated that he believed the sentence 

imposed on Danang was not "humanitarian" and could damage his prospects for the 

future⁷. Komnas HAM however has no mandate to compel the government to 

reconsider court decisions such as that imposed on Danang and the two journalists.

On 24 November, lawyers acting for Eko Maryadi and Ahmad Taufik were informed

by the Jakarta High Court that their sentences had been increased to three years on 

appeal. Danang's sentence remained the same. In yet another incident of unfairness,

the decision had been signed by the court on 11 October, but had not been conveyed

to the defendants or their lawyers. The lawyers were only informed of the decision after

they contacted the court to confirm whether a decision had been made, as the legal 

time limit in which higher courts decide on appeals had expired.

Amnesty International considers the actions of the Indonesian Government against

the journalists and Danang to be contrary to its stated commitment to protect human 

rights and an indication that the government is not yet willing to tolerate peaceful 

criticism. The organisation considers the three to be prisoners of conscience and 

calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

2. THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

In response to appeals for the release of Ahmad Taufik, Eko Maryadi, Danang Kukuh 

Wardoyo and Tri Agus Susanto, the Directorate General for Press and Graphics 

at the Ministry of Information and the Director of Foreign Information at the 

Department ofForeign Affairs both issued background papers on AJI and the

press in Indonesia⁸. This is consistent with statements from the Indonesian 

Government concerning the imprisonment of other individuals. The responses 

attempt to justify the actions of the government by referring to the need for a free 

but "responsible" press, but avoid completely the issue of imprisonment of peaceful

critics.

The first paper concentrates on the illegal status of AJI and Independen and the 

reasons for the June 1994 media bannings. It also provides great detail about the

official Indonesia Journalists' Association (PWI) as the defender of the interests of 

journalists. The response fails to acknowledge that following the establishment of AJI, 

PWI announced the expulsion of 13 members, saying they had "forfeited" their 

right to membership by joining AJI.