Judge Frees Delpedro and Colleagues; All Prosecution Allegations Unproven

The panel of judges of the Central Jakarta District Court acquitted Lokataru Foundation director Delpedro Marhaen and his associates on the grounds that there was no evidence that they disseminated false information or incited violence in connection with the demonstrations in August last year that ended in clashes. The judge stated that Delpedro and the other defendants were also not proven to have invited or exploited children for military and/or other armed interests as charged under Article 76H in conjunction with Article 15 and Article 87 of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection in conjunction with Article 55(1)1 of the Indonesian Penal Code. The other three defendants who were acquitted were Lokataru Foundation staff Muzaffar Salim, admin @gejayanmemanggil Syahdan Husein, and Khariq Anhar, a student at Universitas Riau and administrator of the Aliansi Mahasiswa Menggugat. ‘Acquitting the defendants of the Prosecution’s charges,’ said Chief Judge Harika Nova Yeri as she read the verdict at the Central Jakarta District Court on Friday 6 March. The verdict is not yet final because there remains a cassation mechanism that the parties can pursue. Based on the legal facts presented at trial, the public prosecutor at the Jakarta Pusat State Prosecutor’s Office failed to prove that the defendants’ actions fell into the category of defamation and incitement to violence or to challenge the authorities. Not a single witness, including a child witness, testified that they were invited by the defendants, directly or indirectly, to participate in demonstrations and violence. ‘Rather, they were prompted by reactions to the issue of increases in MPs’ allowances and the death of Affan Kurniawan (the online motorcycle taxi driver),’ the judge explained as the reason the witnesses took part in the demonstrations. The judge also referred to an August 27, 2025 post on Lokataru Foundation’s Instagram about opening a help desk and legal assistance for students intending to demonstrate but facing threats. Although the post contained the phrase ‘we fight together’, the judge viewed this as advocacy support for students facing sanctions, not as an invitation to physically resist state authorities or the government. Earlier, the prosecution had demanded a two-year prison sentence for Delpedro, Syahdan, Muzaffar and Khariq. That demand was made because the prosecutors believed the defendants had been proven to have incited electronically in connection with the demonstrations from 25–30 August 2025 that culminated in clashes, resulting in damage to public facilities and injuries to police. The prosecutors argued that the defendants recognised Instagram as an effective platform to disseminate information to the public. Through Instagram accounts run by the defendants, the prosecutors said, at least 19 collaborative posts were created during the late August demonstrations last year. The prosecutors contended that the content was inciting as it carried provocative and confrontational narratives. The posts also carried consistent hashtags such as #IndonesiaGelap, #IndonesiaSoldOut, and #ReformasiPolri. The prosecutors added that Instagram’s algorithm increases the likelihood that the defendants’ content reaches a wide audience. The Instagram accounts of the defendants that were questioned by prosecutors were Blok Politik Pelajar, Lokataru Foundation, Gejayan Memanggil, and Aliansi Mahasiswa Menggugat. The defendants faced charges of violating Article 28(3) in conjunction with Article 45A of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) in conjunction with Article 55(1)1 of the Indonesian Penal Code, or the third charge under Article 160 in conjunction with Article 55(1)1. They were also alleged to have violated Article 76H in conjunction with Article 15 in conjunction with Article 87 of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection in conjunction with Article 55(1)1 of the Penal Code. The prosecutors had also charged the defendants with violating Article 28(2) in conjunction with Article 45A(2) UU ITE in conjunction with Article 55(1)1 of the Penal Code. However, the first charge was dropped by the panel for failing to meet formal and material requirements of the indictment.