TAUD's Remarks on Judge Requesting Andrie Yunus's Presence in Sulphuric Acid Attack Trial

The judge in the Military Court should have closed the trial and declared it non-justiciable because this falls under the jurisdiction of the general court, as the victim is a civilian, especially since the judge raised the issue of the absence of examination of the victim and civilian witnesses,” Isnur told reporters on Thursday (30 April 2026). According to Isnur, there has been no effort to uncover intellectual actors or suspected civilian involvement in the case. This is because the motive provided by the defendants for the acid attack during the trial was personal vendetta. “There is no effort to expose civilian involvement, so it is clear that the judge should have stopped it because it does not align with the absolute competence of the military court,” he stated. He assessed that the military judicial process being conducted is misguided and erroneous. Isnur said the trial for the acid attack on Andrie Yunus should have been held in the general court. “This further shows that it is a misguided and erroneous judicial process. Because from the investigation stage, there should have been examination of witnesses and the victim, but that was skipped; it is clearly a flawed process. The judge should have halted the case, stopped the examination, and returned the file; the case should have been declared non-justiciable first and returned because the victim is a civilian. The Military Court should have rejected this case. Return it to the General Court; that is the correct procedure,” he said. Previously, the panel of judges requested that Andrie Yunus be brought to the trial in the acid attack case involving four TNI soldiers as defendants. The judge asked the military prosecutor to coordinate with the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) to present Andrie. This was conveyed by the judge during the indictment hearing at the East Jakarta Military Court on Wednesday (29 April 2026). The defendants are Sergeant Two Edi Sudarko (ES), First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi (BHW), Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetyo (NDP), and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka (SL). Initially, the military prosecutor stated that TNI Puspom investigators had submitted a summons for Andrie’s examination to the LPSK. The first summons was issued on 27 March 2026 and responded to by the LPSK on 31 March 2026. The prosecutor said the second summons was submitted on 3 April 2026 and responded to by the LPSK on 16 April 2026. The prosecutor noted that Andrie is still undergoing physical and psychological treatment. The judge asked the prosecutor to recognise his position in this case. The judge stated that the prosecutor acts in the interests of the victim, so Andrie Yunus’s testimony is important in the trial. It is known that the four TNI soldiers carried out the acid attack on KontraS activist Andrie Yunus. The military prosecutor said the defendants carried out the action because they were annoyed with Andrie. The prosecutor said the defendants learned of Andrie on 16 March 2025 when Andrie entered and interrupted a parliamentary meeting discussing revisions to the TNI Law held by the DPR at the Fairmont Hotel in South Jakarta. The defendants considered Andrie’s actions to have insulted the TNI institution. The prosecutor charged the four soldiers with violating Article 469 paragraph 1 subsidiary to Article 468 paragraph 1 further subsidiary to 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.