Indonesia badly needs witness protection law

Indonesia badly needs witness protection law

Soeryo Winoto, Staff writer, The Jakarta Post, soeryo@thejakartapost.com

The screening of unabashed physical abuse by senior students
of the state-run Public Administration Institute (STPDN) against
their juniors has become a nightmare for the institute, located
in the West Java town, Sumedang.

The footage by private television station SCTV has apparently
provoked anger among the public, most of whom regard what the
senior students did as barbaric.

As the top official responsible for what has happened at the
institute, Minister of Home Affairs Hari Sabarno has reacted to
the screening from a different perspective. He is uneasy about
the footage and plans to report the screening of the violence to
the Press Council. He said SCTV had violated press ethics by
airing something that could provoke public anger or fear.

Hari's move may well trigger a debate on the meaning of
investigative reporting carried out by SCTV, which is trying to
fulfill the right of the public to the truth over the
controversial death of STPDN junior student Wahyu Hidayat.

Meanwhile, the snowball keeps rolling. Head of the institute
Sutrisno has been fired, and more (senior) students are now being
questioned as suspects in the death of Wahyu and in the physical
abuse of other junior students.

The institute has a black mark with regard to three students,
including Wahyu, who died during what their seniors call "regular
training," since the institute's establishment 11 years ago.

Among the searching questions that demand honest replies from
both STPDN management and Hari Sabarno's office are: How could
such violence at the STPDN campus -- as shown by SCTV -- have
been kept secret for so long?

A possible answer is that nobody had the courage to report
what had been happening at the institute for fear of their own
safety.

It is interesting to note that Inu Kencana Syafi'i, an STPDN
lecturer, cried out for protection after he tried to report the
irregularities carried out by (several or many) of his students.
He is accused of distributing the footage to the television
station.

Inu visited the House of Representatives on Tuesday to seek
protection after he had been to Sumedang Police for similar
reasons, following death threats he had received via the
telephone and cell phone messaging service (SMS) for his action
in reporting the violence within the institute.

Witness protection is a novelty within our current judicial
system, despite the skepticism of some that the law -- like other
existing legislation -- would properly be enforced.

There is no clear legal mechanism to protect those who report
criminal action, fraud, corruption or violations of human rights.
What the police and the House are doing for Inu is merely a
specific response to Inu's personal request.

In practice, no one can guarantee the safety of a witness due
to the absence of law to protect them.

Those affected by negative reports -- due to their alleged
criminality or corruption -- usually defend themselves by
demanding that an initial report be submitted with legally
admissible evidence. Unfortunately, the police usually fail to
use such a report as a starting point for their investigations,
due to the absence of evidence.

The case of Endin Wahyudin, who reported alleged corruption by
three Supreme Court justices Supraptini Sutarto, Marnis Kahar and
Yahya Harahap, is a good example.

Endin, a middleman, said that the three officials had received
a total of Rp 196 million from him for "helping" him to process a
civil case at the Supreme Court.

The district court, which handled the resultant bribery case,
charged Endin with defamation for reporting bribery involving the
three Supreme Court justices, and the judges sentenced him to
three months in jail, suspended for six months in September 2001.
The court then made no further investigation of the Supreme Court
justices, arguing that there was no evidence, instead of using
Endin's report as an initial step to investigate the bribery
allegations, as requested by the Joint Team for Corruption
Eradication (TGPTPK).

The case of prosecutor Kito Irkhamni, who was sentenced to 23
days for fraud, was another anomaly in our legal system. Kito was
indicted after he testified over the alleged illegal ownership
of a luxury house in Cinere, South Jakarta, by Attorney General
MA Rachman.

Interesting in this case were statements by Hendardi, chairman
of the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association. He said
that the messages emanating from Endin's and Kito's cases were,
"anyone who tries to expose corruption must be ready to become an
Endin or Kito."

Article 31 of Law No. 31/1999 protects witnesses from being
identified. Therefore, those related to the case must conceal
witnesses' names or addresses.

However, the article can no longer meet the need for
protection, given the allegations of human rights violations in
East Timor and other criminal and corruption cases involving
people like Inu, Endin and Kito.

President Megawati Soekarnoputri approved government
regulations on the protection of witnesses and victims of human
right violations merely to accommodate political pressure ahead
of the trial of senior Indonesian Military officers charged with
rights violations in East Timor.

In response to public demand, the House of Representatives
initiated the drafting of witness protection legislation last
year. According to the draft, a witness who is under serious
threat is allowed to testify directly via telecommunications
media, which means that the testimony can be given outside the
court room.

However, the draft has remained untouched since then. Chairman
of Commission II at the House said early in April this year that
the commission would discuss the draft by the end of April. But
the draft remains a draft.

It is not clear why the House has yet to accord witness and
victim protection issues top priority, given that they are no
less important than other pieces of legislation that have a
political impact.

It is now obvious that the absence of legislation to protect
witnesses and victims of criminal acts or corruption proves the
government's lack of commitment to encouraging people to report
such irregularities. There are times when big cases end up in
court after reports from a passerby.

If our legal system already had law to protect witnesses and
victims, the violence claimed to be "traditional" at the STPDN
campus could have been stopped some years ago. If a witness and
victim protection law had already been in existence, Inu would
not have needed to seek protection from the National Police
following the death threats he received after reporting the long-
established culture of violence at the campus.

-- 0 --