CCTV Footage of TNI Bais Barracks Not Checked, Judge in Andrie Yunus Case: Fortunately, the Defendants Admitted
The military prosecutor presented Sertu Arif Firdaus, the head of the provost team at TNI Bais, as a witness in the case involving the acid attack on KontraS activist Andrie Yunus. The judge questioned the CCTV recordings in the TNI Bais headquarters area on the night of the acid attack in Salemba, Central Jakarta.
The trial was held at the Jakarta Military Court on Wednesday (6/5/2026). The four defendants in this case are defendant I Sersan Dua Edi Sudarko, defendant II Letnan Satu Budhi Hariyanto Widhi, defendant III Kapten Nandala Dwi Prasetyo, and defendant IV Letnan Satu Sami Lakka.
Initially, the judge asked about the condition of the gate at the TNI Bais headquarters. Arif said there were only front and back gates at the headquarters.
He said the back gate was only used in urgent situations. He said the opening of the back gate was also done on the commander’s orders.
“Sometimes the front gate is a bit congested, so they tell us to use the back gate,” Arif replied.
“Is there a time for opening and closing it, a specific time?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, it’s on the commander’s orders, with permission. If there’s something urgent, it has to be opened,” Arif replied.
Arif said that members entering and exiting for morning roll call went through the front gate. He said the front gate remained open because it provided access to the barracks and parking area.
“Do you monitor the front gate, is there a guard?” the judge asked.
“The front gate is guarded by provosts and non-commissioned officers, officer on duty, everyone monitors, especially for office access, permissions. For the barracks, it’s usually just people coming and going like that. Because there’s the barracks and parking,” Arif replied.
“Outside office hours, they go through the front gate?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, that’s correct,” Arif replied.
The judge then asked whether the defendants’ movements on the night of the incident were monitored by the duty team at the TNI Bais headquarters. Arif said the defendants’ movements were not monitored.
“The defendants went out at night. They left in the evening and returned at night, even possibly in the early hours. Were they monitored by the duty officers or the gate guards?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, they were not monitored,” Arif replied.
“Why?” the judge asked.
“We only monitor entry into the inner ring, permissions, or office areas. For the main gate, it’s wide open, so they can come and go without hindrance,” Arif replied.
“The main gate is wide open?” the judge interjected.
“Yes, sir, it’s open,” Arif replied.
“How can an intelligence office have its gate wide open like that?” the judge asked in surprise.
“Yes, sir, because it’s for access to the parking and the barracks,” Arif replied.
The judge said he had only just learned that the TNI Bais headquarters was located near the Heroes’ Cemetery (TMP). Arif said the gate was only opened slightly for motorcycle access after midnight.
“I myself just found out that the Bais office is there, near the TMP, a bit further ahead at the flyover, right?” the judge asked.
“That’s correct,” Arif replied.
“Yes, there’s no signboard, right? Intelligence offices don’t have signboards, do they?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, there isn’t,” Arif replied.
Arif then said there was CCTV at the front gate of the TNI Bais headquarters. However, Arif said they did not check the CCTV recordings on the night of the incident.
“That’s the question leading there, on the 13th (March) in the early hours, defendants I and II returned to the barracks. Defendant III probably went home outside. Was that monitored?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, no, permission,” Arif replied.
“But there’s CCTV?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, there’s CCTV at the front,” Arif replied.
“If we request it, can we see what time they entered on the 13th morning?” the judge asked.
“Usually, we check it about a week or two weeks for the recordings that are still stored,” Arif replied.
“Did the witness go there to check? The CCTV from the 13th (March) morning, was the footage or video taken when defendants I and II entered?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, no,” Arif replied.
The judge questioned why the CCTV recordings at the entrance to the TNI Bais headquarters, which showed the defendants’ movements, were not checked. He said it should have been done to verify the truth of the defendants’ statements.
“It should have been to match it, oh, you really entered on that date, match it with the CCTV entry. Is there any, is there a recording?” the judge asked.
“Yes, sir, every day we see if there’s a recording if it needs to be checked, permission. But as far as we know, it’s only a week or two weeks for the stored recordings,” Arif replied.
“Alright. That’s for later, but fortunately the defendants admitted. If they hadn’t admitted, then the check would be necessary, so there’s a match, what time the incident happened, correlation. If they hadn’t admitted, that (CCTV) would be the clue. But fortunately, they admitted,” the judge said.
Prosecution
Previously, the prosecutor charged the four TNI soldiers with throwing acid on KontraS activist Andrie Yunus. The military prosecutor said the defendants carried out the action because they were annoyed with Andrie.
The prosecution hearing was held at the East Jakarta Military Court on Wednesday (29/4). The prosecutor said the defendants learned of Andrie on 16 March 2025 when Andrie entered and interrupted a DPR meeting discussing revisions to the TNI Law at the Fairmont Hotel in South Jakarta. The defendants considered Andrie’s actions to have insulted the TNI institution.
The prosecutor said defendant I wanted to teach Andrie a lesson as a deterrent effect. Then, defendant II suggested the idea of throwing rust remover liquid.
In short, the defendants sought information about Andrie Yunus’s activities. They divided tasks when carrying out the acid attack. They then threw acid on Andrie Yunus in the Salemba area, Central Jakarta, on the night of 12 March 2026.