Detention of Delpedro and Co-defendants Converted to City Arrest: What Are the Rules?

The panel of judges has decided to convert the detention status of three defendants in the alleged incitement case related to the August demonstrations to city arrest.

The three are Lokataru Executive Director Delpedro Marhaen, administrator of the @gejayanmemanggil account Syahdan Husein, and Lokataru Foundation staff member Muzaffar Salim. Although no longer held in a detention centre, all three remain under detention status with reporting obligations and restrictions on travelling outside the city without permission.

“Indeed, the Panel of Judges at the Central Jakarta District Court has ordered the conversion of detention for three defendants from detention centre to city arrest on 13 February 2026, pursuant to Article 108 of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code,” said Central Jakarta District Court spokesperson Sunoto in a statement on Monday (16 February).

Sunoto emphasised that the decision does not mean the defendants have been released. Their legal status remains that of detainees, with only the place of detention being changed. They are also required to attend all court hearings as scheduled by the panel of judges.

“It must be stressed that conversion of detention is not release. The defendants remain under detention status with reporting obligations, are prohibited from leaving the city without permission, and must attend every court hearing. Proceedings will continue as scheduled,” he said.

Prior to these three defendants, the panel of judges had already granted a detention conversion for another defendant, University of Riau student Khariq Anhar. The judges’ consideration at that time related to his health condition and trauma.

In the case of Delpedro, Syahdan, and Muzaffar, the judges had different considerations for each defendant. For Delpedro Marhaen Rismansyah, the conversion was granted on educational grounds, as he is an active master’s degree student completing his thesis with a deadline of May 2026.

Meanwhile, Muzaffar Salim obtained the detention conversion due to family responsibilities. He is known to be caring for elderly parents, with his mother suffering from heart disease and requiring regular medical check-up accompaniment.

For Syahdan Husein, health reasons were the primary consideration. He is described as a person with mental disability who requires regular psychiatric consultations.

“All applications were accompanied by supporting documents and written guarantees from family members,” said Sunoto.

In this case, Delpedro, Muzaffar, Syahdan, and Khariq are charged with incitement related to demonstrations that led to unrest in August 2025. The prosecution alleges that Delpedro carried out the incitement through the posting of images and narratives on social media.

“Those who committed, ordered, and participated in the deliberate and unauthorised distribution and/or transmission of electronic information and/or electronic documents of an inciting nature, inviting or influencing others to create feelings of hatred or enmity towards certain individuals and/or groups of people based on race, nationality, ethnicity, skin colour, religion, belief, gender, mental disability or physical disability,” the prosecutor stated when reading the indictment.

The prosecution also explained that the defendants allegedly created or joined social media groups to communicate intensively with like-minded parties. Police investigations uncovered 80 pieces of content deemed to be inciting and provoking hatred towards the government, posted via Instagram between 24 and 29 August 2025.

Furthermore, the consistent use of hashtags such as #indonesiagelap, #gejayanmemanggil, and #bubarkandpr in every post was said to form a coordinated campaign easily detected by algorithms as a trending topic. The prosecution argued that the content contributed to the unrest at the end of August.

For their actions, the four defendants are charged with violating Article 28 paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph 2 or Article 28 paragraph 3 in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph 3 of Law Number 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 point 1 of the Criminal Code, or Article 160 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 point 1 of the Criminal Code, or Article 76H in conjunction with Article 15 in conjunction with Article 87 of Law Number 35 of 2014 on Child Protection in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 point 1 of the Criminal Code.