Attorney Rizieq Shihab Problem 2 Petamburan Witness: It Is Not Burdensome, Nor Does It Lighten Up

JAKARTA - Rizieq Shihab's lawyer, Aziz Yanuar, said that the statements of the two witnesses who were presented in the case of the alleged crowd and violation of the health protocol (prokes) in Petamburan did not burden his client. But the witness testimony is said to have not made it easier.

"It is not burdensome either, but if we make it light or not, we will answer it in the pledoi because there are several statements according to him (his) opinion," Aziz told reporters, Monday, April 26.

The statement from the Head of the DKI Jakarta Health Service, Widyastuti, according to Rizieq's lawyer, was only normative. But behind all that, there is no solid evidence that the Petamburan crowd charges have led to an increase in positive cases of COVID-19.

"The Jakarta Kadinkes answers are all normative. But there is one important fact that there is no valid evidence that the crowd in Petamburan referred to there is a real fact that there are clusters from there, from there some are affected by COVDI-19, PCR is not there according to Kadinkes, "said Aziz.

"The evidence is all random and comes from various urban villages and is not the focus of the event," he continued.

Meanwhile, the testimony given by the former Head of the Tanah Abang Religious Affairs Office (KUA), Sukana, was said to contain only feelings. But in reality, according to Rizieq's lawyer, there was no intimidation or anything that caused Sukana to feel afraid.

"From the KUA, I was afraid to leave (the location of the wedding), I asked why it was just feelings. So there was no threat to him. That's the rest normative," said Aziz.

In the alleged violation of the health protocol in Petamburan, Rizieq Shihab was charged with incitement to the appearance of a crowd at his daughter's wedding as well as commemorating the Prophet's birthday. This crowd is taking place in the midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Rizieq was charged with violating Article 160 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 93 of Law Number 6 of 2018 concerning Health Quarantine in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code and or Article 82 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 59 paragraph 3 letters c and d Law Number 16 of 2017 concerning Community Organization jo Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 KUHP in conjunction with Article 10 letter b KUHP in conjunction with Article 35 paragraph 1 KUHP.