Prosecutors Affirm That Haris Azhar's Trial Did Not Silence The Voice Of Human Rights Defenders

JAKARTA - The Public Prosecutor stated that the trial of the defamation case involving the Executive Director of Lokataru Haris Azhar and Kontras Coordinator Fatia Maulidiyanti was not to silence critical voices, especially related to the defense of human rights (HAM).

This was conveyed by the team of Public Prosecutors (JPU) led by Yanuar Adi Nugroho when starting the reading of the indictment against the defendant Haris Azhar for the defamation case of the Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment Luhut B Pandjaitan at the East Jakarta District Court, Cakung, on Monday.

"Once again we emphasize that this trial is not an attempt to silence critical voices, especially those related to the defense of human rights and the environment as well as anti-corruption activists in Papua," said the Public Prosecutor in a trial chaired by Chief Judge Cokorda Gede Arthana as reported by ANTARA, Monday, November 13.

On the other hand, said the prosecutor, the prosecution was carried out to handle the subjective actions committed by Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti who had defamed the victim's witness, Luhut B Pandjaitan.

"Each party can understand and respect the ongoing legal process and not demean it with negative assumptions," he said.

During this trial, it was clearly revealed how sensitive issues such as human rights, the environment and anti-corruption activists in Papua have been abused and drawn into narratives, not for the benefit of the community but to protect their personal interests.

The prosecutor also highlighted the issue of the attitude of legal advisors which was considered not in line with the spirit of the prosecutor and judges to explore the truth in the case.

"It is unfortunate that the attitude and spirit of the public prosecutor and the panel of judges at the trial by objectively judging wisely and wisely, is in contrast to the attitude and spirit of PH Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti from the Advocacy Team for Democracy who cannot use this opportunity as well as possible," he said.

The prosecutor also said that Haris and Fatia's legal advisers were unable and not creative in formulating a defense strategy.

According to the prosecutor, the arguments submitted by Haris' legal adviser also did not have a juridical basis.

"So, we have easily predicted analysis and description in detail since the exception response note was made and read out by the public prosecutor," said the prosecutor.

This, according to prosecutors, shows a significant weakness in their defense approach.

Visitors to the court shouted when the Public Prosecutor delivered this statement.

During the evidentiary process, said the prosecutor, legal advisors have also created misleading narratives and distorted facts and presented a legal analysis that is not only wrong but also discredits the legal process.

"During the trial process, PH from the Advocacy Team for Democracy has tried hard to cover up Haris Azhar and Fatia's malicious intentions which have been explained straightforwardly in the indictment and confirmed at the evidentiary stage," said the prosecutor.

In this case, Haris and Fatia were charged with defaming Coordinating Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan.

The prosecutor assessed that Haris and Fatia's statement in a video uploaded through Haris' YouTube account had defamed Luhut.

The video is titled "There's supplied Luhut behind Intan Jaya's economic-ops military relations!! There are also BIN Generals 1! > NgeHAMtam". They discussed a quick study of the Coalition to Clean Indonesia with the title "Military Placement Economy-Politicals in Papua: Intan Jaya Case" which shows Luhut's involvement.

Haris and Fatia were charged with Article 27 paragraph 3 in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph 3 of the ITE Law, Article 14 paragraph 2 of Law Number 1 of 1946, Article 15 of Law Number 1 of 1946, and Article 310 of the Criminal Code concerning Insults. Each of these articles in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.