Lawyers for protester refute testimonies

Lawyers for protester refute testimonies

Urip Hudiono, Jakarta

Lawyers for Niu Fatorus, alias Alay, a former Pluit apartment
tenant who is on trial for allegedly inciting a clash while
protesting the eviction of the low-cost apartment dwellers in
last February, claimed that witness testimonies were wrong
because Alay had a strong alibi.

Reinhard Parapat of the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights
Association (PBHI) also questioned the prosecution charges made
against the defendant, as they differed from the ones during his
arrest and questioning.

In a hearing on Tuesday at the North Jakarta District Court,
two security guards who work for apartment operator PT Jakarta
Propertindo, Gatot and Marzuki, testified that the defendant was
at the scene with the protesting tenants when the rioting took
place from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Reinhard asserted that his client had already left the scene
at about 3:30 p.m.

"The defendant was, at the time, filing a complaint with the
Penjaringan police station for the brutal abuse he suffered
during the eviction," he said. "The defendant then went to the
Pluit hospital to have his injuries examined until 6 p.m."

Alay was reportedly beaten by Propertindo guards sent to carry
out the eviction order. They claimed they had to resort to
repressive measures when negotiations with the tenants broke
down. Alay was a representative in those talks.

The eviction soon deteriorated into a full-scale brawl as the
tenants stood their ground and even managed to close down the
operator's office located nearby.

The dispute between the tenants and the landlord company
started at the end of 2002, when the firm announced a 72 percent
hike in rent prices for 2003. Some 480 families refused to pay
the increase. Propertindo responded by cutting off the tenants'
water and electricity.

Reinhard also questioned the very validity of the case because
Alay was now being tried for inciting a riot and damaging
property as stipulated in Articles 160 and 170 of the Criminal
Code, however, the police arrested him and charged him with
possession of explosives, a violation of Article 187.

"Our client was also arrested a day after the eviction ... and
the evidence found by the police is also questionable," he added.