Jakarta – The legal team representing Surya Anta Ginting and three other Papua defendants charged with treason and criminal conspiracy submitted a demurrer (eksepsi) or note of objection against the public prosecutor’s indictment during a hearing at the Central Jakarta District Court on Monday January 6.
In the demurrer, the legal team said that the prosecutor’s charges were imprecise, unclear and incomplete because they failed to explain the meaning of makar (treason, subversion, rebellion) which Anta and his colleagues are being charged with.
“There was not one sentence in the indictment which explains the meaning of makar or a benchmark of [what constitutes] an act of makar, so this has created confusion on the part of the defendants, their lawyers and the public over the prosecutor’s charges”, lawyer Tigor Hutapea said in reading out the demurrer.
According to Hutapea, the prosecutor should also include Article 87 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) which states that the benchmark for an act of makar is when there is concrete intent prior to the act being committed. In the incitement however, the prosecutor failed to explain this.
“Thus we request that the panel of judges declare that the public prosecutor’s indictment be thrown out for the sake of the law because it does not include the stipulations included in Article 87 of the KUHP”, he said.
The legal team also said that the indictment was legally flawed because the prosecutor failed to explain what physical attack or aanslag took place during the criminal act of makar.
Referring to explanations by several criminal law experts, makar as used in the KUHP is defined by the Dutch term aanslag which means an attack against the government.
But in the indictment, said Hutapea, the prosecutor did not explain what physical attack took place which is one of the elements of Article 106 of the KUHP.
“The public prosecutor did not explain what physical attack took place when the defendants held the protest action on August 28, 2019. Yet the element of an attack is an essential component under Article 106 of the KUHP”, he said.
In addition to this, the prosecutor also failed to explain what actions by Anta and his colleagues can be construed as criminal conspiracy. Hutapea said that the prosecutor just copied and attached all of the descriptions on the charge of makar without explaining the actions which constitute an act criminal conspiracy.
“The public prosecutor was unable to explain the act of criminal conspiracy so it can be said that the indictment is imprecise, unclear and incomplete”, said Hutapea.
Hutapea added that the prosecutor’s indictment also ignored the real facts and was not based on an investigation process which met all of the requirements. Because of this therefore, he asked the panel of judges to throw the charges out and grant the demurrer presented by the defendants.
“We also ask that the panel of judges to halt the examination of the case and order that the 1st defendant Paulus Surya Anta Ginting, the 2nd defendant Charles Kossay, the 3rd defendant Ambrosius Mulait Als Ambo and the 4th defendant Isay Wenda be released from detention”, he said.
Earlier the prosecution charged Anta, Kossay, Mulait and Wenda, along with Dano Tabuni and Arina Lokbere are to be tried separately, with treason and criminal conspiracy.
In the first indictment, the six Papua activists are charged with violating Article 106 in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) or makar.
In the second indictment meanwhile, the six are charged under Article 110 Paragraph (1) of the KUHP on criminal conspiracy for flying the Morning Star independence flag during a protest action in front of the State Palace on August 28 last year. (psp/bmw)
[Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was “Jaksa Tak Jelaskan Arti Makar, Surya Anta Cs Ajukan Eksepsi”.]