A panel of judges at Military Court II-08 Jakarta assessed that\nKontraS Deputy External Coordinator Andrie Yunus was uncooperative and\nundermined the authority of the court. The judge stated that their\ngoodwill in wanting to hear Andrie\u2019s testimony at trial was not matched\nby Andrie. \u201cThe panel initially hoped that Mr Andrie Yunus could attend\nin person to give testimony in a public trial so that comprehensive\nlegal facts could be explored and obtained,\u201d the judge said while\nreading the verdict against the defendants at Military Court II-08\nJakarta, on Wednesday (10\/6\/2026). The judge stated the panel wished to\nexplore the victim\u2019s condition before, during, and after the incident,\nwhich according to the judge was a matter only known to Andrie. The\njudge opined that this wish was not reciprocated with goodwill from\nAndrie. \u201cConsidering that the panel\u2019s goodwill was not reciprocated with\ngoodwill from Mr Andrie Yunus,\u201d the judge remarked.<\/p>\n
The judge said they had provided the option for Andrie\u2019s testimony to\nbe heard online if he could not be physically present in court because\nhe was still receiving medical treatment. The judge stated they were\nguided by a doctor\u2019s statement indicating Andrie was fit to give\ntestimony online. \u201cIn his statement when examined as an expert during\nthe trial, he stated that Mr Andrie Yunus\u2019s condition was\noutpatient-based and allowed him to provide testimony online via Zoom\nMeeting,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n
The judge assessed that the online option was also not fulfilled by\nAndrie. The judge opined that Andrie ignored his obligation and gave the\nimpression of opposing the trial process at the Jakarta Military Court.\n\u201cConsidering that the panel initially assessed and understood this\nsituation, but in this matter, Mr Andrie Yunus, aside from ignoring his\nobligation, also gave a contrary impression to the trial process and\ncast a negative stigma by showing distrust towards the judicial process\nat the Military Court,\u201d the judge said. \u201cIt even gave the impression of\nbelittling the legitimate process provided by the state. The panel in\nthis matter assessed Andrie Yunus\u2019s attitude as having demeaned the\nauthority of the court,\u201d the judge continued.<\/p>\n
The judge assessed that Andrie was uncooperative in seeking justice\nfor the deprivation of his rights by the defendants. \u201cConsidering that\nthe uncooperativeness of Mr Andrie Yunus in seeking justice for his\nrights that were violated by the defendants was ignored by the\nindividual concerned himself,\u201d the judge stated.<\/p>\n
The judge also declared there was no military intelligence operation\nin the case of the acid attack on Andrie Yunus. The judge stated that\nthe defendants carried out the acid attack out of resentment and a\ngrudge against Andrie. The judge said the defendants did not know\nAndrie. The judge said the defendants wanted to teach Andrie a lesson\nand provide a deterrent effect. The judge stated the defendants\nharboured resentment because Andrie forced his way in and staged an\ninterruption during the TNI Law Revision meeting at the Hotel Fairmont\nJakarta on 16 March 2025. Additionally, the judge said the defendants\nbelieved that Andrie accused the TNI of intimidation and terror at the\nKontraS office, accused the TNI of being the mastermind or actor in the\nriots in late August 2025, and because Andrie actively propagated\nanti-militarism narratives.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is true that for these perpetrators, who emotionally did not know\nthe victim but harboured a grudge and resentment towards the victim,\nthis falls under the theory of vicarious trauma,\u201d the judge said. The\njudge stated that an intelligence operation is not a spontaneous act,\nbut is designed systematically, and is not built on personal anger. \u201cIt\nis true that in military intelligence doctrine, an intelligence\noperation is not a spontaneous or emotional act, let alone one carried\nout individually without a command structure. A military intelligence\noperation is an activity designed systematically, in a tiered manner,\nmeasurably, and based on the state\u2019s strategic objectives,\u201d the judge\nsaid.<\/p>\n
The judge assessed that to label an action as an intelligence\noperation, it must be provable through the state\u2019s strategic objectives,\nan order or authorisation, command structure, operational planning,\noperational system support, execution control, evaluation mechanism, and\naccountability. The judge said if these elements are not met, it is\ndifficult to call an act an intelligence operation. \u201cThe Panel in this\nmatter, basing its view on the expert\u2019s opinion, affirms and is\nconvinced that the defendants\u2019 actions had no connection with\ninvolvement from the command structure,\u201d the judge remarked.<\/p>\n
The full verdicts for the 4 defendants are as follows: Defendant I,\nSecond Sergeant Edi Sudarko, was sentenced to 3 years in prison and\ndismissed from military service. Defendant II, First Lieutenant Budhi\nHariyanto Widhi, was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and dismissed from\nmilitary service. Defendant III, Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetyo, was\nsentenced to 2 years in prison. Defendant IV, First Lieutenant Sami\nLakka, was sentenced to 1.5 years in prison. The judge declared the\ndefendants guilty of violating Article 467 paragraph 1 in conjunction\nwith paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 20 letter C of Law Number 1\nof 2023 concerning the Criminal Code.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/judges-accuse-andrie-yunus-of-undermining-court-authority-for-skipping-trial-1781092749", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }