Reasons Andrie Yunus Rejects Visit from Military Auditor
The Advocacy Team for Democracy has conveyed the stance of KontraS Deputy Coordinator Andrie Yunus regarding the military auditor’s plan to visit his client at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Central Jakarta on Tuesday, 12 May 2025. TAUD representative Airlangga Julio stated that Andrie refuses visits from military institutions as a form of consistent rejection of his case being tried in a military court.
“Andrie Yunus has been consistent from the start until now in rejecting all processes in the military court and refusing visits from anyone from the TNI institution,” Julio said at RSCM in Jakarta on Monday.
Julio emphasised that TAUD, as Andrie’s legal representatives, will convey the client’s refusal to the military auditor. He stated that TAUD is not attempting to obstruct the auditor’s efforts to visit Andrie. However, they are acting in accordance with Andrie’s wishes, who is still receiving treatment for recovery from burns and eye injuries caused by being doused with acid.
“We will convey that Andrie Yunus does not wish to meet. Then, if the victim as a patient does not consent, it would be the military auditor forcing entry, not us blocking it,” Julio said.
According to Julio, to date, neither TAUD nor Andrie has received a summons for Andrie’s attendance at the military court, which has already held two sessions. The summons for Andrie was only conveyed by the military auditor through the Witness and Victim Protection Agency.
“This indicates that from the outset, the military court process does not understand proper, fair law enforcement that favours the victim,” he said.
This morning, former Corruption Eradication Commission investigator Novel Baswedan visited Andrie and commented on the court process for the acid attack case at Jakarta’s Military Court II-07. Novel, who was also a victim of an acid attack, deeply regrets the military judge’s statement describing the TNI soldier’s actions against Andrie as mere mischief.
According to him, the military judge’s way of thinking damages common sense. Novel also emphasised that Andrie’s refusal of the military auditor’s visit must be respected.
“Basically, it’s normal for a sick person to be visited. And of course, the visitor is someone desired and permitted by the sick person. Because it shouldn’t end up making the visit cause more harm,” Novel said.
Previously, the panel of judges at Jakarta’s Military Court II-08 requested Andrie’s presence as a witness in the trial of the acid attack case against him, which implicates four members of the TNI Strategic Intelligence Agency (Bais TNI) as defendants. The order to present Andrie was issued by the judge during the first hearing with the agenda of reading the indictment at Jakarta’s Military Court II-08 on Wednesday, 29 April 2026.
The judge initially asked for the reason why the victim had not yet been presented as a witness in the trial. In response to that question, the military auditor explained that investigators from the TNI Central Military Police (Puspom TNI) had sent a summons for examination to Andrie via LPSK. The first summons was sent on 27 March 2026 and received a response on 31 March.
The auditor stated that the second summons was sent on 3 April 2026 and received a response from LPSK on 16 April 2026. However, LPSK, which provides protection for Andrie, stated that the victim is currently still undergoing physical and psychological medical treatment in hospital.
The judge then emphasised that the auditor has the responsibility to ensure the victim’s interests are represented in the trial. According to the judge, the victim’s testimony is an important part of the proof process in the case.
The judge stated that the victim’s presence does not have to be physical in the courtroom. He assessed that examination could be conducted virtually with LPSK accompaniment. The panel of judges ordered the auditor to facilitate Andrie’s presence in the next hearing.
The judge emphasised having the authority to summon witnesses by force if those efforts fail. “I request that it be facilitated; if the auditor is unable, then the panel of judges will use its authority to forcibly present the witness by determination,” the judge said.