Three defendants in obstruction of law enforcement in corruption cases acquitted
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Three defendants in the alleged obstruction of law enforcement in three corruption cases were acquitted in the reading of the panel of judges’ verdict at the Corruption Court, Central Jakarta District Court, in the early hours of Wednesday.
“The presiding judge Effendi said: ‘The defendants were not proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the criminal acts as charged in the single indictment.’”
“They are the former Tian Bahtiar TV crew member Tian Bahtiar, activist or head of the buzzer team Adhiya Muzakki and advocate Junaedi Saibih.”
“A buzzer is an individual, group, or network of social media accounts that are paid or organised to disseminate information, build narratives and influence public opinion on political topics, products, or social issues on a large scale.”
“Thus, the presiding judge ordered the restoration of the defendants’ rights in their capacities, positions, dignity, and honour after the verdict was pronounced.”
“The presiding judge emphasised that there was no malice or unlawful character in the acts carried out by Tian in the case because Tian was considered merely performing his journalistic duties by producing the coverage.”
“If the reporting was seen as negative, the presiding judge said, it is merely a matter of perspective or viewpoint, not a truth that can be measured by criminal eyes.”
“Meanwhile, regarding Adhiya, the panel opined that his social media posts cannot be seen as malice because Adhiya carried them out only after obtaining consent from lawyer Marcella Santoso.”
“Then regarding Junaedi, the presiding judge considered that organising a seminar, even with negative narratives, is part of non-litigation advocacy outside the trial.”
“As long as conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, it is not part of acts that are unlawful, the presiding judge said.”
“Moreover, the presiding judge added, Junaedi has been proven never to know, approve, or participate in producing articles that are negative toward the Attorney General’s Office, whether in mainstream media or social media, as referred to by the prosecutors.”
“The three defendants were also charged to be fined Rp600 million each, with the provision that if the fines are not paid they would be substituted with 150 days in prison.”
“In the case, the three defendants allegedly created programmes and content aimed at shaping negative public opinion regarding the handling of the three cases.”
“In the tin case, the three defendants were said to have obstructed by devising a defence scheme by creating negative narratives and negative opinions involving buzzers on social media to influence the handling of the case.”
“Then in the sugar case, the three defendants were suspected of obstructing by creating content and negative opinions about the handling of that case by investigators from the Attorney General’s Office.”