JAKARTA: A proposal by Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka to involve ad hoc judges in the trial of acid attack victim Andrie Yunus has drawn skepticism from legal experts, while civil society groups welcomed it as reinforcing their demand for the case to be tried in civilian court.
One month after the assault on Andrie, a human rights activist from the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), on March 12, no one had been brought to justice.
The military police arrested four soldiers assigned to the military’s Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS) as suspects in the case on March 18, and handed over the case to military prosecutors just last Tuesday (April 7), bringing the assault closer toward a military trial despite push from civil groups for a civilian trial.
The Vice President made the proposal in a press statement last Thursday.
“Direct involvement of professionals with strong track records and integrity as ad hoc judges in a trial of the acid attack against Andrie is crucial to maintain public trust and the dignity of the law,” Gibran said, as quoted by Antara.
He added that the move would help “assure the public that justice is being properly upheld”, although he did not specify whether the ad hoc judges should serve in military or civilian court.
Coordinating Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Correctional Services Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra said the government would discuss the proposal with the Supreme Court.
“It is not impossible that, in certain cases, ad hoc judges could be appointed to handle certain matters. However, this would require discussions between the government and the Supreme Court,” Yusril said on Friday, while affirming the case was likely to proceed in a military court given no civilian suspects, as quoted by Antara.
Legal experts, however, said the proposal lacked legal basis. Criminal law expert Abdul Fickar Hadjar of Trisakti University dismissed it as “misguided”, saying that under current legal framework, ad hoc judges are limited to special courts, including those that handle corruption and human rights cases.
“Such proposals must be grounded in law. If there is no legal basis, the judicial process cannot simply be altered at will,” Fickar said on Saturday.
He added that the only possible way would be if the case were classified as a gross human rights violation and tried before a human rights tribunal.
Criminal law professor Hibnu Nugroho of Jenderal Soedirman University echoed that view. “If we are to follow Gibran’s proposal, the case would have to be brought to a civilian court,” he said on Saturday.
Both experts maintained that the attack, a crime unrelated to military duties, should be tried in a civilian court under the Indonesian Military (TNI) Law.
But Hibnu acknowledged a legal inconsistency, as the Military Court Law requires all soldiers to be tried in military courts.
He said the solution would depend on “the discretion of the state through the TNI leadership” to bridge the gap and determine the proceedings that best serve public interest.
A coalition of human rights groups advocating for justice in Andrie’s attack welcomed the suggestion, but said it could only be implemented in a civilian court.
“It is a strong signal that the state recognizes serious issues concerning the professionalism, track record and integrity of actors within the military court,” Muhamad Isnur, chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, one of coalition members, said on Thursday.
“Therefore, external actors such as ad hoc judges are needed,” he added. He warned that if the TNI proceeds with a military trial, it would amount to “defiance of the government’s policy direction” conveyed by the Vice President. - The Jakarta Post/ANN
