East Halmahera Nickel Dispute Session: Prosecutor's Witness Is Considered Inconsistent

JAKARTA The nickel mining dispute in East Halmahera resurfaced in a trial at the Central Jakarta District Court (PN), Wednesday, October 1. The trial involving PT Wahana Karya Mineral (WKM) against PT Position presented a witness from the Public Prosecutor (JPU), namely Plaghelmo Seran as the Head of the Lestari Forest Management Center (BPHL) for the XVI Ambon Region.

This follow-up trial was delayed for more than six hours before it finally started. In fact, the panel of judges had postponed the proceedings and moved the courtroom.

Witness Inconsistency In Court

PT WKM's attorney, Rolas Sitinjak, assessed that the witnesses presented by the prosecutor were inconsistent in providing information. Some of the answers presented were considered different from the Minutes of Investigation (BAP) and did not refer to the facts on the ground.

The panel of judges himself had insinuated that this witness sometimes remembered, sometimes forgot. This is a waste of time," said Rolas after the trial.

When asked by the panel of judges, the witness admitted that he had never seen the location of the incident in East Halmahera firsthand. This reinforces doubts about the validity of his testimony.

Allegations Of Forest Addition And Potential State Loss

The trial also touched on the corridor path that was built by PT Position to go to the factory. According to Rolas, every wood that was cut from the route should have an official permit and be included in the Annual Work Plan (RKT).

"Imagine, along the 11 kilometer road it is opened, but the witness does not know whether the wood has been paid to the state or not. This has the potential to harm the state," he said.

Selain itu, Rolas mengungkapkan adanya dugaan perambahan hutan karena lebar jalan yang dibangun melebihi aturan. Temuan tim Penegakan Hukum (Gakkum) Kelisok II Ambon menyebutkan lebar jalan mencapai lebih dari 100 meter, padahal aturan hanya memperbolehkan sekitar 40 meter.

"If indeed the road is opened without a basis for RKT, then there is clearly an addition. This is one of the most serious forestry crimes after corruption in state money," said Rolas.

Different Views Between Agencies

The trial also revealed different views between agencies. Witnesses from the forestry hall said road construction did not require additional rules, while information from the previous agency emphasized that there must be a special permit.

"This confuses the public as well as opens legal loopholes. Even though our forests are the responsibility of the state," said Rolas closing his statement.