Pre-trial Hearing: TAUD and Polda Metro Jaya Submit Conclusions to Judge

The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) has requested the sole judge of South Jakarta District Court to order Jakarta Metropolitan Police to continue investigating the acid attack case against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus. This was stated in the conclusion presented during today’s hearing. ‘Order the respondent to continue legal proceedings regarding police report number LP/A/222/III/2026/Satreskrim/Restro Jakarta Pusat/Polda Metro Jaya dated 13 March 2026 and transfer the case to the Public Prosecutor within 14 days of this ruling being read,’ said TAUD representative Alghiffari Aqsa at South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday (26 May). According to TAUD, based on hearing facts and legal analysis, Jakarta Metropolitan Police has clearly and provenly delayed handling the case involving the applicant. Polda Metro Jaya is alleged to have clearly and provenly concealed the termination of the investigation. Therefore, TAUD has requested the sole judge to declare that Polda Metro Jaya has delayed case handling without legitimate reason. The judge is also requested to declare Polda Metro Jaya’s actions as an unlawful termination of the investigation. ‘Order the respondent to pay the legal costs arising from this case,’ said Alghiffari. ‘Or if the examining judge holds a different view, request a fair and equitable ruling (ex aequo et bono),’ he added. Meanwhile, Polda Metro Jaya has requested the sole judge to declare TAUD’s application premature and should be rejected. ‘Reject the applicant’s pre-trial request in full or, at minimum, declare the application inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard),’ said Polda Metro Jaya representative Briptu Garindra Aldo. Garindra asserted there has been no delay in case handling or concealed termination of the investigation by his office. ‘Order the applicant to pay the legal costs in accordance with applicable law,’ he said. ‘Or if His Honour the sole pre-trial judge holds a different view, request a fair and equitable ruling (ex aequo et bono),’ he added.