Owner of Bibi Kelinci in Kemang Named a Suspect, Expert Warns Against Shielding Unpaid Dining Behaviour

Criminal-law lecturer Azmi Syahputra of Trisakti University criticises the police for naming Nabilah O’Brien, owner of Bibi Kelinci Kemang, as a suspect in a defamation case. He views the action as an anomaly in law enforcement. The case began when Nabilah uploaded CCTV footage of a group of youths who intimidated staff and did not pay a Rp530,150 bill on 19 September 2025. Instead of receiving protection as a victim, Nabilah was reported for defamation and faced a civil damages claim of Rp1 billion.

‘How could the legal institutions provide a platform for perpetrators who clearly instigate crime through intimidation and non-payment?’ Azmi said on Friday, 6 March 2026.

Azmi reminded investigators at Bareskrim to pay heed to the spirit of the National Criminal Code (New KUHP), particularly Article 70(1)(h). If there are factors such as provocation or a contributing fault by the complainant, the urgency of prosecuting the alleged offender (the cafe owner) should be dismissed.

The ‘defamation’ complaint is not operating in a vacuum; it is a reaction to the crime committed by the visitors. Prosecuting the cafe owner would legitimise the dubious conduct of individuals who attempt to silence victims by intimidation, Azmi added.

Azmi argued that Nabilah’s action in uploading the video was a form of defending rights and a compelled defence, not an intent to defame. Without premanisme actions by the visitors, there would be no social media reaction.

He highlighted the disparity between the Rp530,000 loss and the Rp1 billion damages demanded by the complainants, calling this an example of Exceptio Doli Mala—claims based on bad intent or deceit.

‘Seeking Rp1 billion for an unpaid Rp530,000 meal is a painful legal farce. Criminal law must not become a haven for social climbers behaving like thugs,’ he said.

Moreover, Azmi warned that if the complainants’ report is not halted (SP3), Bareskrim would be setting a harmful precedent. It would seem to encourage anyone to cause trouble at a restaurant, refuse payment, and still jail the owner if they publicly protest.

‘This is not law enforcement; this is law hijacking by criminals. A good name belongs only to those who act in good faith and fulfil their obligations. Sociologically, the public will lose trust in the police if kleptocratic behaviour is protected by defamation laws,’ he concluded.