TAUD Objects to Andrie Yunus Case Being Referred to Military Court
The case file regarding the acid attack on KontraS activist Andrie Yunus has been referred from the Military Audit Office II-07 Jakarta to the Military Court II-08 Jakarta. The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) has expressed strong objections.
“In the case at hand, the need for independence is far stronger because the attack occurred after our client’s public advocacy activities that directly addressed the remilitarisation and judicial review of the TNI Law. In such a context, forcing the case into a military court forum will create a serious appearance of conflict of interest in the eyes of the public,” stated Muhamad Isnur, Chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), in his remarks on Thursday (16/4/2026).
He assessed that the legal process conducted by the TNI’s Central Inspectorate (Puspom TNI) and the Military Prosecutor lacks transparency and accountability, while ignoring the victim’s rights. TAUD, as the legal representatives for Andrie Yunus, has never received official information from the Military Audit Office 07-II Jakarta or Puspom TNI regarding developments in the Andrie Yunus case.
“This could impact the fulfilment of the victim’s rights in criminal proceedings. Andrie Yunus, as the victim, is not receiving his right to truth and guarantees of a fair trial as a victim,” he explained.
Andrie Yunus has objected to his case being processed in a military court. TAUD views the referral by the Military Prosecutor 07-II to the Military Court 08-II not as an achievement but as an attempt to protect intellectual actors.
“The swift referral by the Military Prosecutor 07-II to the Military Court 08-II is not an achievement, but rather an effort to protect intellectual actors, obscure facts, and avoid public pressure,” he said.
“The referral of the case to a military court indicates steps to limit the number of perpetrators and the inability of Puspom TNI and the Military Prosecutor to uncover all actors involved, both field actors and intellectual actors,” Isnur continued.
Based on TAUD’s investigation, it is suspected that there were 16 field perpetrators who coordinated with each other on the day of the attack on Andrie Yunus. Isnur stated that these dozen suspected perpetrators do not include the intellectual actors.
He said the referral to the Military Court shows an effort to limit the number of perpetrators and not to uncover the incident in its entirety. Isnur also stated that the referral is an attempt to avoid public pressure demanding investigation up to the intellectual perpetrators.
“This referral action further proves an effort to create impunity for TNI soldiers who commit general criminal acts,” he explained.
“The TAP MPR No VII/MPR/2000 decree and the provisions of Article 65 of the TNI Law have stated that when a military member commits a general criminal act, they are not acting in the capacity as a military legal subject, but as a citizen subject to general criminal law,” he said.
Furthermore, TAUD highlighted the use of the aggravated assault charge by the Military Prosecutor. TAUD views this as a form of downplaying the acid attack on Andrie Yunus.
“With sound reasoning and reasonable logic, the acid attack on Andrie Yunus should be regarded as premeditated murder with participation as regulated in Article 459 in conjunction with Article 17 in conjunction with Article 20 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, and not merely premeditated assault,” he explained.
TAUD believes that the determination of the court forum in this case should not be solely based on the perpetrator’s status as a soldier. Rather, it should be based on the nature of the act committed and its relation to official military duties.
“Law 31/1997 itself does not completely close the possibility of a general court forum. Article 43 paragraph (3) states that the Supreme Military Court decides on differences of opinion between the Case Submitting Officer and the Prosecutor regarding whether or not a case should be brought to a court within the military judiciary or a court within the general judiciary,” he said.
He stated that this mechanism is enshrined in Article 127. Isnur assessed that the current positive law recognises space for determining the forum between military and general courts.
“Therefore, the Prosecutor is not being asked to do something foreign to Law 31/1997. The Prosecutor is instead asked to use the space already available in the law to advocate for the most appropriate forum legally,” he said.
Isnur emphasised the importance of considering the victim’s rights and public trust. He stressed that the 1945 Constitution guarantees equality before the law, fair legal certainty, and positions human rights enforcement as a state responsibility.
The following are TAUD’s demands in the Andrie Yunus case:
The President of the Republic of Indonesia orders the Military Audit Office 07-II Jakarta to return the Andrie Yunus case file to the Metro Jaya Regional Police for continuation to the Investigation and Prosecution Process in the General Court;
The Head of the Military Audit Office II-07 Jakarta, represented by the Military Prosecutor in the case at hand, to submit the legal process through the general judiciary environment, and to suspend any case referral to the Military Court until the issue of the competent court forum obtains legal certainty;
The Chairman of the People’s Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI) to immediately summon and oversee the actions of the Indonesian National Army in this regard, the Military Audit Office, related to the submission of the file to the Military Court;
The Head of the Military Court II-08 Jakarta to reject the case file referral by the Military Audit Office because this case falls under the general court jurisdiction.
The Head of the Indonesian National Police orders the National Police Criminal Investigation Agency and the Metro Jaya Regional Police to continue the comprehensive uncovering of the case in a timely manner as respect for the victim’s right to legal certainty.