A military court in Jakarta has commenced the trial of four Indonesian service members accused of carrying out an acid attack on a prominent human rights activist, a case that has sparked renewed debate over military accountability in the country.
Details of the Case
The defendants—Sergeant Edi Sudarko, First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi Cahyono, Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetya, and Air Force First Lieutenant Sami Lakka—are charged with serious premeditated assault. All four are assigned to military intelligence units. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 12 years in prison.
Prosecutors allege that the men acted together, describing the motive as personal. They claim the attack on Andrie Yunus, a human rights lawyer and senior activist with the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), was intended to teach him a lesson and deter him from making disparaging remarks about the Indonesian military (TNI).
Military prosecutor Mohammad Iswandi told the court: "The actions of the defendants who threw chemical liquid on Andrie Yunus, resulting in the loss of sight in his right eye and severe burns with no hope of complete recovery, were inappropriate actions for members of the TNI."
Criticism from Rights Groups
Human rights organizations have criticized both the personal-motive narrative and the decision to try the case in a military court rather than a civilian one. Usman Hamid, executive director of Amnesty International Indonesia, stated: "This case has been narrowed to just four individuals, without transparency, while the motive is framed as personal." He noted that there was no clear personal or professional relationship between Yunus and the accused, and alleged that official military assets were used in the attack.
"It is difficult to accept that state facilities were used solely for personal revenge," Hamid added, warning that the handling of the case risks undermining public trust in the justice system.
Court Proceedings
After prosecutors read the indictment, the defendants—two of whom sustained minor facial and eye injuries from acid splashes during the attack—did not file objections. The presiding judge announced that the trial will resume on May 6, when the court will hear witnesses.
The Jakarta police initially handled the investigation but later announced that members of the military were implicated. Six days later, military police arrested the four suspects from the Strategic Intelligence Agency of the Indonesian National Armed Forces.
The Attack and Its Aftermath
Yunus, 27, was riding his motorcycle in central Jakarta on the evening of March 12 when assailants hurled a vial of hydrochloric acid at his face. According to prosecutors, he suffered chemical burns to about 20% of his body and damage to roughly 40% of his right cornea. He has undergone several surgeries and remains in recovery, preventing him from attending the trial's opening.
Yunus is recognized for his advocacy against impunity and his work on security sector reform and civil liberties. He was active in protests last year opposing proposed revisions to Indonesia's military law that would expand the armed forces' role in civilian affairs. Colleagues say he has faced repeated intimidation linked to that work.
Comparisons to Past Cases
The case has drawn comparisons to the 2004 murder of Munir Said Thalib, a leading human rights activist and founder of KontraS, who was poisoned with arsenic on a flight to Amsterdam. Although several people were convicted, activists argue that the mastermind was never fully revealed.
Mounting calls from civil society groups to reveal who ordered and financed the attack on Yunus prompted a response from Indonesia's President Prabowo Subianto, a former army general. Prabowo has pledged to pursue those responsible and said he is considering an independent fact-finding team.
Broader Implications
Rights groups say the Yunus trial will test the military's post-reform commitment to accountability. Indonesia's military formally withdrew from politics after the fall of dictator Suharto in 1998, leading to reforms aimed at strengthening civilian oversight. However, this case highlights ongoing concerns about military impunity and the need for transparent justice.
