Series of Controversies Surrounding the Plan to Form a Human Rights Activists Assessment Team
The Ministry of Human Rights has become a topic of public discussion following Minister Natalius Pigai’s statement regarding the formation of a team to assess human rights activists. Pigai stated that this assessment team is intended to ensure that legal protection is provided only to those who genuinely perform the function of defending human rights.
Pigai, in an exclusive interview with the Antara news agency in Jakarta earlier this week, said the team would determine activist status. He explained that this mechanism is designed to filter activist claims while preventing the misuse of status in legal processes.
He elaborated that the assessment would be based on strict criteria evaluating the context of an individual’s actions at the time of an incident, rather than mere status or self-identification.
“So, it could be that a human rights activist, at a certain time, the assessment team finds that he is working, even though his status is as a human rights activist, at the time he is working for payment, he cannot be considered a human rights activist,” said Pigai in Jakarta on Wednesday, 29 April 2026, quoted from Antara.
According to Pigai, protection would only be given to those defending public interests, particularly vulnerable groups, without personal or commercial motives.
Amnesty: The State Lacks Moral and Legal Legitimacy to Determine Activist Status
In response to the plan, Amnesty International Indonesia asserted that the state does not have the moral or legal legitimacy to determine who may be called a human rights or HAM activist.
Deputy Director of Amnesty International Indonesia, Wirya Adiwena, described the plan as a backward step that is dangerous and harms the fundamental principles of human rights. “When the government unilaterally takes over this authority, what happens is not protection but control and monopolisation of civil space,” said Wirya in a written statement on Thursday, 30 April 2026.
Wirya explained that the status of a human rights defender is inherent in a person’s actions and commitments, not in administrative validation from the government. For him, the state’s obligation is to protect human rights defenders, not to label or revoke their status.
Wirya also emphasised that such policies lack a clear legal basis because they fundamentally contradict international standards, particularly the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. That declaration, Wirya noted, explicitly states that anyone has the right to be a human rights defender as long as they oppose human rights violations through peaceful means.
PKB Politician: No Democratic State Selects the Status of Human Rights Defenders
Member of Commission XIII of the House of Representatives, Mafirion, stated that the discourse on an assessment team to evaluate human rights activists has the potential to violate basic principles of civil freedom and the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. According to this politician from the National Awakening Party, the plan to form the assessment team must be seriously reviewed.
“No democratic state makes the status of a human rights activist subject to state selection. The state’s role should be to protect, not to determine who may be a human rights defender,” said Mafirion on Friday, 1 May 2026, quoted from a written statement.
Mafirion reminded that according to international standards, every individual has the right to advocate for human rights without requiring administrative recognition from the state. The status of a human rights defender is not an identity determined by the government through a selection mechanism.
“So do not create classifications that instead limit the freedom and rights of individuals in voicing commitments, defences, and responses to alleged human rights violations occurring around them,” he said.
This legislator, who serves on the commission for human rights, assessed that such certification policies are highly risky in creating conflicts of interest. The reason is that activists often position themselves to criticise those in power. The state’s authority in determining the legitimacy of activists is seen as opening the door to restrictions on freedom of expression and weakening the public’s oversight function over power.
In addition, Mafirion is concerned about the emergence of legal discrimination in protections for activists. He predicted that in the future, only those holding certificates would receive security guarantees, while other individuals who genuinely defend human rights but are not administratively registered would be neglected.
“This risks shifting the meaning of human rights from a universal right to merely an administrative status dependent on state recognition. If this happens, there will be injustice in the concept of human rights protection,” said Mafirion.
How Does Minister Natalius Pigai Explain It?
Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai clarified that the assessment team in the draft revision of the Human Rights Law would not determine a person’s status as an activist or human rights defender.
“The circulating title is misleading and can create wrong perceptions. I am actually ensuring maximum protection for human rights defenders so they cannot be criminalised,” said Pigai in Jakarta on Thursday, 30 April 2026, quoted from Antara news.
Pigai stated that the information claiming the government-formed assessment team determines human rights activist status is inaccurate and potentially causes misunderstandings about the substance of the policy being prepared.
According to him, the existence of the assessment team in the draft regulation is not to limit or unilaterally determine status, but to ensure protection is given appropriately to those who genuinely perform the defence function of human rights.
He said the approach used is based on the context of actions, not individual labels, so the assessment is conducted on defence activities in a particular incident. “If he is defending the little people, the weak who want to fight for justice, then he happens to be a human rights defender, then he is designated as a human rights defender,” said Pigai.
He added that this mechanism is important to prevent the misuse of claims as human rights activists by parties with personal interests.