Lawyer Accuses Police of Criminalising Suspect in Santri Burning Case
M Ikhwan, legal counsel to Ahmad Muzakki Rahmatullah, known as AMR, has alleged that his client is being criminalised. Ahmad is a suspect in the case of the alleged burning of three santri at the Rosudatussaulatiyah Al Ibrahimy Islamic boarding school (ponpes) in Aik Darek village, Batukliang district, Central Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB).
Ikhwan said the designation of his client as a suspect appeared forced and fabricated. In his view, it has no clear legal basis whatsoever.
“The designation of our client as a suspect by investigators is a form of criminalisation, because there is no basis at all,” Ikhwan told detikBali on Friday (10/7/2026).
According to him, if every leader or manager of an educational and training institution could be charged under Articles 474 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code, then prisons would be full of the commandants of the TNI Academy, the Police Academy, and the director of the Institute of Domestic Governance (IPDN).
“Because there are frequent incidents of seniors beating juniors to death. And how many ponpes have seen santri die on their premises, yet the ponpes leaders are not charged with negligence,” he said.
As an illustration, he also raised the case of the death of a female santri from East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) at a ponpes in the Kapek area, Gunungsari district, West Lombok, which at the time drew public attention. According to him, in that case the ponpes leadership was not automatically held criminally accountable on grounds of negligence.
He explained that punishable negligence is negligence that directly causes the criminal consequence. For example, if a manager installs electrical wiring that fails to meet safety standards, resulting in someone being electrocuted and dying, then there is a clear causal relationship between the negligence and the resulting harm.
“That is different from the case we are facing now. There is no direct causal relationship between our client’s actions and the occurrence of the fire. Therefore, we believe the designation of our client as a suspect does not meet sufficient legal grounds, and we will challenge it through the pre-trial mechanism,” he concluded.
Suspect Status Called Premature
Ikhwan also considered the suspect designation against his client premature and lacking a strong legal basis. “The designation of our client as a suspect looks very premature,” said Ikhwan.
According to him, investigators do not yet have sufficient evidence to prove the element of negligence alleged against his client. His side contends that his client only learned of the fire after it had occurred.
“Because our client first learned of the burning of the santri after the incident took place. So the negligence alleged by investigators must relate to what our client did or did not do after the incident occurred,” he said.
Ikhwan explained that under criminal law, negligence that can give rise to criminal liability is negligence that has a direct causal relationship with the occurrence of a criminal event.
In this case, however, he sees no direct relationship between his client’s actions, or failure to act, and the fire that left the victims with burns.
“If the negligence did not directly result in the burning of the santri victims, how can criminal liability be imposed? For that reason, the suspect designation against him has no legal justification,” asserted the man familiarly known as Iwan Slank.
He said the incident of 13 December 2025 was fundamentally an accident that no one had planned. According to him, the fire began when several santri tried to straighten a piece of wood by burning it with petrol.
“So there is no element of intent, no element of fault in this case. What happened was an accident or a disaster that no one wanted, let alone planned,” he said.
Ikhwan said that if examined against Articles 474 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code as alleged by investigators, his client does not meet the elements of fault or intent required under criminal law.