Comprehensive Intelligence Reform in Indonesia

Intelligence is a strategic instrument of the state, used to assess threats, protect national interests and ensure public safety. But when intelligence powers are directed towards political interests — monitoring the opposition because of political differences, preserving elite dominance, intimidating activists and journalists, gathering personal information to exert political pressure, or silencing criticism — security institutions risk becoming tools for controlling democracy.

The problem is becoming more serious as surveillance technology advances without adequate democratic oversight. Intelligence reform in Indonesia should focus on clarifying powers, strengthening accountability, protecting citizens’ rights and transforming national security into an instrument for public safety.

Allegations of illegal wiretapping targeting President Prabowo Subianto and several public figures in November 2026 have raised serious questions about the governance of state surveillance powers. The National Police’s Criminal Investigation Department named three senior police officers as suspects in a case involving alleged interception without due process, illegal access to electronic systems and the deletion of electronic data.

The three suspects are Listyo Sigit Prabowo, Ahrie Sonta Nasution and Eko Hadi Santoso, who have been detained during the investigation. The case is alleged to be connected to surveillance activities throughout 2025–2026 targeting the President, state officials, politicians, journalists, activists, community figures and businesspeople.

Investigators said they had questioned 10 witnesses and three experts. They also seized 11 mobile phones, an iPad and four flash drives as evidence as they investigated the alleged interception and deletion of electronic records.

The alleged method involved using a Lawful Interception Management System (LIMS) to add several telephone numbers without the required verification and procedures. Investigators also suspect that interception log files were deleted in October 2026 to conceal the activity.

Developments on 4 November 2026 further underscored the urgency of institutional reform when President Prabowo dismissed Listyo Sigit from his position as head of the Presidential Staff Office. Lieutenant General Ariyo Windutomo was subsequently appointed acting head of the office to ensure continuity of its functions.

State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi said the alleged wiretapping could endanger national interests and security. The government also said the case might involve conduct amounting to treason, although the motive and legal basis still need to be established through the investigation.

Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra said investigators were examining indications pointing towards suspected treason. This was the government’s view during the investigation and is not a judicial finding.

The case reveals a serious paradox: officials empowered to conduct surveillance are themselves alleged to have used state instruments without lawful procedures. The matter touches on the integrity of the security system, the protection of private communications and the state’s ability to control the powers of its own officials.

However, the investigation must distinguish between established legal facts, statements by officials and speculation about political motives. There is not yet sufficient publicly available evidence to conclude that the case was a particular political operation, an elite conflict or an attempted coup.

The investigation must establish who ordered the operation, who operated the system, who received the intercepted material and who was targeted. Identifying the chain of command and any other parties involved is essential to ensure that law enforcement does not stop with technical operators.

The case highlights the urgent need to reform the governance of intelligence and wiretapping in Indonesia. Reform must ensure that surveillance powers have a legal basis and legitimate purpose, and are subject to operational limits, approval procedures and accountability that can be scrutinised.

The 2011 Intelligence Law (Law No. 17/2011) establishes professionalism and respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights as principles governing intelligence activities. The challenge is to strengthen implementation, oversight and mechanisms for correcting abuses of power.

Intelligence reform also requires a clear division of responsibilities among the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), the Indonesian Military’s Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS TNI), the National Police’s Security Intelligence Agency (Baintelkam Polri), and intelligence units in other ministries and agencies. Coordination should be based on institutional mandates, operational standards and accountability mechanisms that prevent overlapping roles and competition for authority.

Regulatory reform is increasingly relevant as the government says it will review rules on electronic interception with relevant ministries and the National Cyber and Crypto Agency (BSSN). The review should aim to establish a more independent and transparent oversight framework that safeguards citizens’ rights.

Intelligence reform cannot be effective without strong democratic oversight. Commission I of the House of Representatives (DPR RI), internal oversight mechanisms, judicial scrutiny and independent oversight bodies need the capacity to examine the legality of operations and follow up on alleged violations.

Democracy and the people

National security is directly linked to public safety and the quality of democracy. When intelligence is used to monitor the opposition, pressure activists, intimidate journalists or preserve the dominance of particular groups, state powers risk straying from their constitutional mandate.

Alleged surveillance of journalists, activists and civil society points to risks far beyond violations of private communications. Illegal monitoring can create fear, curb freedom of expression, weaken civil society organisations and restrict public participation in politics.

In its 2024 report A Web of Surveillance, Amnesty International documented an ecosystem for the trade in spyware and surveillance technology in Indonesia during 2017–2023. The report highlighted networks of surveillance technology suppliers and concerns about procurement transparency, but did not establish that all the technologies it discussed were used in the November 2026 wiretapping case.

These findings show that digital surveillance has become an issue of security governance and human rights. The state must ensure that the procurement, use and oversight of interception technology are subject to clear audit mechanisms and limits.

Privacy is also an important part of citizens’ constitutional rights. Article 28G(1) of the 1945 Constitution guarantees protection of the person, family, honour and dignity, as well as security from threats and fear that would prevent people from acting or refraining from acting.

Press freedom and freedom of expression are foundations of democracy, enabling the public to hold those in power to account. Professional intelligence services must be able to distinguish criticism of the government from genuine threats to national security.

Intelligence reform must ensure that information about the opposition, civil society organisations and journalistic activity is not collected for electoral purposes or political pressure. Using personal data to intimidate individuals, silence criticism or control political competition is a serious departure from the principles of the rule of law.

Democracy requires security institutions that are professional, neutral and non-partisan. Intelligence services must act on objectively identifiable threats, not a person’s political identity, organisational affiliation or views of the government.

A free civil society also contributes directly to national development. Public criticism helps the government identify policy failures, reduce corruption, improve services and build trust in state institutions.

Digital surveillance should be considered in the context of the challenges facing internet freedom in Indonesia. Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2026 report gave Indonesia a score of 46 out of 100 and retained its “Partly Free” classification. The report highlighted restrictions on digital activism and concerns about freedom of expression online.

Intelligence reform must incorporate human rights protections as an operational standard. The principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation and accountability should apply to every information-gathering activity that could infringe privacy.

Democratic oversight also requires safe complaint mechanisms for the public. Victims of alleged illegal surveillance should have access to independent investigations, protection from intimidation and remedies if violations are proven.

Pancasila provides an ethical foundation for intelligence reform centred on humanity and justice. Its principles of humanity, unity, democracy and social justice call for national security that protects the public without sacrificing freedom and human dignity.

Democratic intelligence requires an institutional culture shift from control towards protection. Professionalism, analytical integrity, compliance with the law and the willingness to correct mistakes should be measures of an organisation’s success.

Security and diplomacy

Intelligence reform has direct implications for Indonesia’s international diplomatic reputation. A country able to ensure professional conduct by officials, protect privacy and respect human rights has a stronger basis for building trust in security cooperation.

Indonesia holds a strategic position as a G20 member, a major democracy and an important ASEAN actor. Its credibility depends on security institutions that can account for their powers and maintain consistency between diplomatic commitments and domestic practice.

International intelligence-sharing depends on confidence in institutional integrity and data security. International partners will consider the risks of information being misused, the protection of communications and legal certainty before entering into strategic cooperation.

Indonesia’s experience with the latest allegations of illegal wiretapping also underscores the importance of communications sovereignty and national information security. In 2013, revelations that Australia had spied on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and several Indonesian officials triggered a diplomatic crisis and highlighted the need to protect a head of state’s communications.

That crisis showed that surveillance of state officials can affect bilateral trust and the stability of diplomatic relations. It also demonstrated that Indonesia needs to build strong communications security capabilities while upholding the rule of law in the exercise of surveillance powers.

Intelligence reform should incorporate a human security perspective. This approach treats people’s safety, freedom, health, welfare and dignity as integral components of national security.

Intelligence focused on public safety can help the government anticipate food crises, energy threats, disasters, social conflict, transnational crime and global economic risks. Accurate strategic information enables the state to respond more quickly to threats and reduce their impact on people’s lives.

Economic security is also an important part of the modern intelligence agenda. Protecting vital infrastructure, supply chains, strategic investment and energy resilience can help sustain development and reduce Indonesia’s vulnerability to external pressure.

Indonesia’s diplomatic reputation will be strengthened when national security is built on professional and accountable institutions. Its commitments to peace, justice and respect for state sovereignty should be reflected in the protection of freedoms and citizens’ rights at home.

Global South diplomacy can gain greater legitimacy if Indonesia shows that security and democracy can go hand in hand. Democratic intelligence reform could contribute to international discussions on security governance, data protection and human rights.

The government should build an intelligence system that is open to evaluation without compromising legitimate operational secrecy. Policy transparency, budget audits, aggregate reporting, compliance reviews and complaint mechanisms can strengthen accountability while preserving institutional effectiveness.

Intelligence reform requires the political will to strengthen limits on state powers. Regulatory improvements, democratic oversight, restrictions on surveillance technology and independent law enforcement are foundations for national security grounded in integrity.

The success of reform can be measured by intelligence services’ ability to prevent threats, protect the public, safeguard democracy and support development. Other measures include fewer abuses of power, greater accountability and sustained public trust.

Strong intelligence does not mean a state that monitors every citizen. Its strength lies in accurately assessing threats, protecting national interests and remaining loyal to constitutional principles.

Intelligence reform is a strategic agenda for Indonesia’s future as a democratic country and a diplomatic power in the Global South. The state needs professional intelligence services, the public needs protection, and democracy needs trustworthy security institutions.

Public safety must be the primary objective of Indonesia’s intelligence services. The country’s international diplomatic reputation will be stronger if it can show that national security, democratic freedom and respect for human rights are part of a single commitment.

Intelligence reform means reforming how the state understands security, exercises power and treats its people. Intelligence services with integrity will strengthen the state, safeguard democracy, protect the public and build trust in Indonesia around the world.