TAUD: Military Court Trial in Andrie Acid Attack Case Full of Theatrics

The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) has stated that the trial process in the acid attack case, where four TNI soldiers doused Deputy Coordinator of KontraS Andrie Yunus with acid, reinforces evidence that military courts are full of theatrics.

This statement was issued by TAUD following the Military Court II-08 Jakarta hearing testimony from five internal TNI witnesses during the trial on Wednesday, 6 May 2026.

“The trial process on 6 May 2026 demonstrates proof of our statement that military courts are a judicial process filled with theatrics and drama that will not bring truth and justice to the victim, brother Andrie Yunus,” TAUD said in a press release shared by KontraS and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) on Thursday (7/5).

TAUD pointed to the fact revealed in the trial that the four TNI soldier defendants have not been dismissed. However, according to TAUD, the dismissal process should have proceeded first as part of the institution’s firm measures and impartiality in the ongoing legal process.

“The absence of dismissal shows intent to ‘protect’ the perpetrators,” TAUD stated.

TAUD also criticised the attitude of the military court panel of judges, which is far from impartial and biased towards the victim.

The presentation of statements regarding the choice of acid container and the reckless action deemed “playful” shows a conflict of interest because the legal process is handled internally, according to TAUD.

Therefore, TAUD opines that there will be no firm, dignified, and just legal process if the logic of the military court panel does not prioritise the victim and only submits to the spirit of corps solidarity to protect the institution.

TAUD also criticised the military court panel’s persistent demand for testimony from Andrie as the victim.

“In this regard, we firmly reiterate that the process of summoning the victim witness, Andrie Yunus, with threats of criminal penalties, was also not conducted carefully,” TAUD explained.

In the formal process, Andrie was never examined by the military prosecutor during the investigation and prosecution phases. Even the prosecutor’s statement when submitting the case file, stating that Andrie’s testimony as a victim witness was not needed, shows a contradiction (a contrario) with the current ongoing trial process.

“The military court should have firmly rejected the case file at the initial submission because it was deemed flawed and unworthy, rather than making bold efforts by threatening Andrie Yunus with criminal penalties for being deemed uncooperative,” TAUD said.

“Moreover, since the investigation and prosecution process by the TNI POM, there has been no communication with Andrie Yunus’s legal counsel, TAUD,” it added.

TAUD also questioned the prosecutor’s action of only summoning the Detachment Commander of the Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS) TNI Headquarters, Colonel Inf Heri Haryadi.

However, testimony from the BAIS Chief, General Yudi Abrimantyo, who on 25 March 2026 surrendered his position as an act of responsibility for his subordinates’ crime, is greatly needed.

“We assess that this situation is valid proof of the military court’s lack of courage to uncover this incident transparently and openly,” TAUD emphasised.

“The principle of equality before the law does not apply because it is shackled by rank structures and the esprit de corps culture, resulting in this incident only becoming a precedent for future events,” it continued.

Additionally, TAUD added that the military court panel’s lack of bias is increasingly evident because it does not attempt to refute the construction and use of the assault article presented by the TNI POM and Military Prosecutor.

In this case, TAUD stated that the perpetrators’ actions against Andrie constitute acts of terror violence and attempted premeditated murder, warranting much higher penalties.

“The lack of careful factual analysis of the incident, along with the panel’s gestures seemingly siding to protect the institution, further confirms the deep-rooted impunity problem in the military justice system,” it stressed.

TAUD also highlighted the fact that the four TNI soldiers sitting as defendants were not on duty when Andrie interrupted a closed meeting discussing the TNI Bill at the Fairmont Hotel between the DPR and TNI in March 2025.

“This fact further shows anomalies in the motive presented by the prosecutor in the first trial on 29 April 2026, as it lacks direct correlation between Andrie Yunus’s action and the four defendants’ statements regarding personal grudges,” TAUD concluded.

Four TNI soldiers are charged with dousing Andrie Yunus with acid on the night of 12 March 2026.

They are Sergeant Two Edi Sudarko, First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi, Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetyo, and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka.

The motive, according to the prosecutor, was that the defendants harboured grudges against Andrie for successfully interrupting the meeting agenda on the revision of the TNI Law held by the DPR at the Fairmont Hotel, South Jakarta, in March 2025.

“With that incident, the defendants considered brother Andrie Yunus to have insulted the TNI institution, even trampling on the TNI institution,” the prosecutor said when reading the indictment in a previous trial.

The defendants are charged with violating Article 469 paragraph 1 subsidiary Article 468 paragraph 1 further subsidiary Article 467 paragraph 1 in conjunction with paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 20 letter c of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code.