Botok and Teguh Convicted in Pati Demonstration Case, but Released Under Supervision
The Pati District Court in Central Java has found two activists, Supriyono alias Botok and Teguh Istiyanto, guilty in a case alleging incitement over demonstrations demanding the resignation of former Pati Regent Sudewo.
In a verdict issued in the Cakra courtroom of Pati District Court on Thursday (5 March), the panel found the two defendants had violated Article 160 of the Indonesian Penal Code, as reformed by Article 246 of the National Penal Code on incitement.
The hearing, which began at 10:30am and concluded at around 2:30pm, was presided over by Chief Judge Muhammad Fauzan, with judges Wira Indra Bangsa and Muhammad Taofik as assessors.
“The court finds the defendants Supriyono alias Botok and Teguh Istiyanto guilty of jointly committing the act publicly in oral form,” said Chief Judge Fauzan when delivering the verdict in Pati on Thursday.
The panel sentenced each defendant to six months in prison. The sentence does not need to be served on the condition that the defendants refrain from committing any other offences during the supervisory period.
The panel also ordered that both defendants be released from detention immediately after the verdict and that all evidentiary items be returned to the rightful owners.
The verdict was attended by several figures and activists, including Inayah Wulandari Wahid, founder of Positive Movement and a fellow activist in the Gusdurian network; retired Police Inspector General Oegroseno, who hails from Pati; Surabaya-based lawyer M. Sholeh; and Tiyo Ardianto, chairman of the Universitas Gadjah Mada’s Student Executive Board.
Thousands of residents gathered around the court, bearing banners and placards calling for the release of the two activists.
The defendants’ lawyer, Nimerodin Gulo, said he was grateful that the proceedings, which began in December 2025 and concluded in early March 2026 at the district court level, had reached closure.
He stated that his clients were found guilty but would not have to serve prison time because they had been given a supervision sentence, so they were released immediately after the verdicts were read.
“Nevertheless, we are actually very opposed to this decision because, in our view, it sends a very hard signal to activists not to demonstrate,” he said.
According to him, the ruling is also seen as undermining the democratic process, because the panel regarded the defendants’ actions as incitement to commit the crime of blocking a road.
He said the panel had not sufficiently considered the provisions of the new Article 256 of the Penal Code, which states that demonstrations require only notification to authorities, not a permit.
Under that article, he added, a demonstration can only be punished if there is no notification and it results in consequences such as an accident, damage, injuries, or deaths. Therefore, in the absence of such consequences, it cannot be categorised as a crime.
Therefore, he will discuss further legal steps with his legal team, even though the sentence imposed is supervision and the two defendants are released from detention.