Not over yet
Not over yet
Marsinah, the murdered labor activist, is long gone. But her
specter, raised once again last week when the Supreme Court
exonerated seven people previously convicted of complicity in the
crime, may be with us for a long time to come.
More than two years after the killing, the memory of Marsinah
has yet to fade. Indeed, her death seems to continue to cause
fresh ripple effects that raise new questions about the current
state of Indonesia's legal and judiciary system, as well as the
nation's human rights conditions.
To briefly freshen our memory of the case: On May 9, 1993, two
years to the day last Tuesday, Marsinah's mutilated body was
found in a forest near Nganjuk in East Java. Police
investigations brought to light the fact that she was killed some
time between May 5 and May 8, 1993.
Prosecutors were quick to point their finger at Judi Susanto,
the owner of PT Catur Putra Surya, a Surabaya-based factory
making spare parts for watches. According to the prosecution team
handling the case at that time, a scheme to kill the labor
activist was worked out by the management, after a demonstration
led by Marsinah was staged by hundreds of workers on May 3 to
demand higher wages.
Prompted by public demands that the death of the labor
activist be investigated, the authorities started to work on the
case and Judi Santoso was arrested for allegedly masterminding
the murder. Not long afterwards, his assistant, Judi Astono, was
arrested for complicity.
Judi Susanto was eventually sentenced to 17 years imprisonment
for ordering the slaying and Judi Astono to four years in prison
for allowing his office to be used for plotting the murder. In
November 1994, however, Judi Susanto was acquitted by the East
Java High Court for lack of proof. Oddly, on that same day, the
same High Court endorsed the district court's verdict on his
alleged accomplice, Judi Astono.
Further doubts on the authorities' handling of the case arose
when all of the defendants in the case retracted their earlier
statements admitting to complicity, claiming they were forced by
interrogators to sign the confessions under coercion.
Under such circumstances, what was the public to believe? Was
torture used to extract the admissions? Judi Susanto was reported
to have said at the time: "I would not only have admitted to
killing one Marsinah. If it was a hundred Marsinahs, I would have
admitted to killing them, too. Who can bear such torture."
In any case, the exoneration of the seven defendants by the
Supreme Court last week certainly opens up a good number of
questions and possibilities. As things now stand, what is one to
think of the testimonies of Lasmini and Susiawati, Judi Susanto's
two housemaids, who swore under oath that they were witnesses to
certain aspects of the crime?
And what about the testimonies given by other witnesses for
the prosecution in the case? Wijono Subagyo, one of the defense
lawyers in the case, is reported to have stated his belief that
with the exoneration of the defendants by the Supreme Court, all
the witnesses heard in the Surabaya district court can be
considered to have committed perjury and could face legal action.
Thus, the Marsinah case may be far from over. Hopefully a good
lesson will be learned: There must be better, surer ways to
settle a case than by coercion, or even torture.