Defence lawyers request annulment of indictment in bank branch manager murder case

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The legal team for the defendants in the alleged kidnapping and murder case of a bank branch manager in Jakarta has firmly requested the military judges to annul the indictment submitted by the Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta.

“Honourable Chief Judge or panel of judges, we kindly request that this criminal case be decided by declaring the indictment from Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta, Number Sdak/49/K/III/2026, which was presented in court on 6 April 2026, null and void by law, or that the indictment from Military Prosecutor II-07 Jakarta be deemed legally unacceptable,” said the legal team led by Lieutenant Colonel Chk Nugroho Muhammad Nur at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on Monday.

The defendants are Sergeant MN (defendant 1), Corporal FH (defendant 2), and Sergeant FY (defendant 3), who are accused of involvement in the kidnapping accompanied by the murder of MIP.

In the continuation of the hearing for the reading of the objection note or exception from the defence, Nugroho assessed that the indictment was not in accordance with the law, both formally and substantively.

In addition to requesting the annulment of the indictment, the legal team also asked that the costs of the case be borne by the state.

In closing the exception, they quoted a classic legal maxim emphasising the importance of protecting the rights of the accused.

“‘It is better to free a thousand guilty people than to punish one innocent person’, and if the panel of judges holds a different opinion, we request the fairest possible ruling,” Nugroho stated.

They assessed that the indictment drafted by the military prosecutor did not describe the facts meticulously, clearly, and completely.

According to the legal team, this lack of clarity is evident in the narration of the criminal events, which is not detailed, particularly in linking the actions of the defendants to the elements of the charged offences.

One main focus was directed at the charges against the third defendant. In the indictment, it was stated that there was no specific description of the role or involvement of that defendant in the charged criminal acts.

“There is no explanation as to whether the individual was involved in premeditated murder, joint murder, assault resulting in death, or deprivation of liberty. This indicates an error in determining the legal subject or error in persona,” Nugroho explained.

Furthermore, the legal team questioned the process of designating the third defendant as a suspect and defendant.

They assessed that the designation was not based on at least two valid pieces of evidence as required by law.

The legal team referred to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which stipulates that designating someone as a suspect must be supported by at least two valid pieces of evidence.

In this case, they assessed that there was no sufficient evidence to link the third defendant to the charged criminal acts.

“There is no alleged criminal act committed, no connection of the defendant to the case. The process must be professional, transparent, and respect human rights to avoid arbitrariness and allow for the testing of involvement,” Nugroho emphasised.

In the exception, it was stated that “meticulous” means no errors or deficiencies in formulating the indictment, “clear” means the elements of the offence and the defendant’s actions are described plainly, and “complete” means all elements of the criminal act are fully elaborated, including the time, place, and manner of the act.

However, according to the legal team, none of these three requirements were met in the submitted indictment. They even stated that the third defendant did not understand the content of the indictment read out in court.

This was deemed contrary to the basic principles of criminal procedure law, which require the defendant to fully understand the charges against them.

Furthermore, the legal team emphasised that the indictment did not comply with the provisions of Article 130 paragraph (4) of Law Number 31 of 1997 on Military Justice.

That article states that the indictment must contain a description of the facts that is meticulous, clear, and complete, including the time and place of the criminal act.

If these provisions are not met, the consequence is that the indictment may be declared null and void by law.

Regarding all the objections raised, the legal team hopes that the Military Judges’ Panel will grant their exception. They request that the indictment be declared null and void by law or at least deemed unacceptable.

Nevertheless, they fully submit the decision to the panel of judges if they have other considerations, with the hope that the ruling taken still upholds justice.

“If the Panel of Judges holds a different opinion, we request the fairest possible ruling,” said Nugroho.