After Rizieq Shihab, The Panel Of Judges Rejects The Exception Of 5 Former FPI Officials In The Petamburan Crowd Case

East Jakarta District Court (Photo: DOK VOI)

JAKARTA - The panel of judges at the East Jakarta District Court (PN) rejected the objection or exception notes from five former officials of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) in cases of alleged crowds and violations of health protocols (prokes) in Petamburan.

Thus, the trial of the case of 5 of Rizieq Shihab's colleagues was entered into the main investigation stage of the case.

"To declare the defendant's and legal advisor's note of objection or exception unacceptable," said presiding judge Suparman Nyompa during a trial at the East Jakarta District Court, Tuesday, April 6.

With the rejection of Haris Ubaidillah, Ahmad Sabri Lubis, Ali Alwi Alatas, Idrus Al-Habsyi, and Maman Suryadi, the trial will continue with the agenda of examining witnesses.

"To declare that the East Jakarta District Court has the authority to examine and try the a quo case," said the judge.

Five former officials of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), Haris Ubaidillah, Ahamd Sabri Lubis, Ali Alwi Alatas, Idrus Al-Habsyi, Maman Suryadi were charged with inciting incitement to the appearance of a crowd at Rizieq Shihab's daughter's wedding and the Prophet's birthday in Petamburan, Jakarta. Center.

"Doing, who orders to do and who participates in doing actions in public, verbally or in writing, incites to commit a criminal act of health quarantine as referred to in Article 93 of Law Number 6 of 2018 concerning Health Canteen, commits violence against the general authorities or does not comply with both the provisions of the Law and The office order is given based on the provisions of the law, ”said the prosecutor reading the indictment at the East Jakarta District Court, Friday, March 19.

In the indictment, the defendants helped Rizieq Shihab in holding the Prophet's birthday and the marriage of Syarifah Najwa Shihab by forming a committee.

The defendants who were the organizers of the event rented tents and all necessities, including by paying a down payment for the tent and repayment on November 16, 2020. They also wrote to the Central Jakarta Sub-dept. Regarding the request.

Incitement carried out by the defendants when accompanying Rizieq Shihab to attend the Prophet's Birthday in Tebet on November 13, 2020. At this activity, Rizieq Shihab openly conveyed his daughter's wedding invitation and the Prophet's birthday commemoration in Petamburan on November 14, 2020.

This incitement was deemed a violation of the quarantine law. But the defendants and Rizieq Shihab did not care and instead invited their supporters to continue to attend the event.

"Rizieq Shihab and the defendants ignored and instead enthusiastically asked and encouraged the public to attend together at Petamburan, which clearly resulted in an increase in the cluster of COVID-19 transmission," said the prosecutor.

In fact, the Mayor of Central Jakarta at that time Bayu Meghantara had warned by issuing a notification letter asking for activities to implement health protocols, limiting participants to no more than 50 percent of the capacity of the activity location, providing facilities for prevention of COVID-19 including body temperature checks for those present. . In addition, the police also appealed to the implementation of the event.

"The defendants and Rizieq Shihab no longer ignored the health protocol and also did not heed the appeal of the Central Jakarta Metro Police Chief, including a letter from the Mayor of Central Jakarta," he said.

The five former FPI officials were 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 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 10 letter b of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 35 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.