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.