OC Kaligis Suspects Legal Manipulation in East Halmahera Mining Case

Illustration of mining management (ANTARA)

The attorney for the two defendants in the alleged crime of installing stakes in the nickel mining area of East Halmahera, North Maluku, Otto Cornelis Kaligis, asked the panel of judges to reveal the facts objectively. This is because the case involving his client is suspected to be full of engineering.

The statement was made after the Public Prosecutor (JPU) read out the charges against Jobs Hafidz and Marsel Bialembang, employees of PT Wana Kencana Mineral or WKM.

PT. Wana Kencana Mineral is known to be the owner of a nickel Mining Business Permit (IUP) in Tail Village and Sagea, South Wasilo District, and North Weda, North Halmahera Regency.

"There is a mining mafia playing. I ask the judge to release two of my clients," Otto said at the Jakarta Corruption Court, quoted Friday, August 15.

According to him, in fact, the benchmarks that became the basis for the report and indictments of the prosecutor were in the IUP area of PT WKM in Tail Village and Sagea, South Wasilo District, and North Weda, East Halmahera, Maluku Utatra.

So that PT Position actually conducts illegal mining work in other company IUP areas. So, the court that occurred was allegedly due to case engineering. In fact, Otto assessed that there was a judicial mafia that made his two clients a defendant in Jakarta.

This allegation was felt since the two clients were questioned by Bareskrim Polri investigators. He said his two clients were accused of installing stakes in the IUP area belonging to his own company, PT. WKM.

"The purpose of installing the stakes is to secure the location, from land grabbing by PT. Position, which carries out illegal nickel mining. So what should be convicted and made suspects is PT. Position for illegal mining nickel, and not our clients," said Otto.

In addition, Otto assessed that irregularities regarding case engineering had occurred since investigators used two different articles during investigations and investigations.

"In the investigation process, our two clients were accused of violating Article 162 of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law in conjunction with Article 50 paragraph 3 letter a and letter k of the Forestry Law, while in the investigation process, the article changed, and was accused of violating Article 162 of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law in conjunction with Article 50 paragraph 2 letter a of the Forestry Law," he explained.

Another oddity, continued Otto, was the use of Article 162 of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law in conjunction with Article 50 paragraph 2 letter a of the Forestry Law, but the questions raised to suspects and witnesses were not questions about violations of these provisions.

"What was asked was, it was actually about the marker/parameter fence carried out by our client in our own client's IUP area, which according to investigators, the installation of the stakes, on the transportation road (logging) which is being worked on by PT. Position," he said.

In addition to violating the IUP area belonging to other companies, PT Position is also considered to have damaged forests.

"Because of the construction of PT Position, it does not open roads for transportation or logging. But it dredges the soil so that forest soil becomes damaged," said Otto.

Meanwhile, in this case the two defendants were charged with Article 162 in conjunction with Article 70, Jo Article 86F letter b, Jo Article 136 paragraph (2) of Law Number 3 of 2020 concerning Amendments to Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining which was amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Stipulation of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 as a Substitute to Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation.

Then, the forestry crime as referred to in Article 78 paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 50 paragraph (2) Letter a of Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Stipulation of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 as a Substitute to Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation.