Three People Acquitted in Obstruction of Investigation Cases Handled by the Attorney General's Office

Three people have been acquitted of charges or been found not guilty in a case involving alleged obstruction of investigations into several cases handled by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). The three are Cyber Army Team Coordinator M Adhiya Muzakki, former Jak TV News Director Tian Bahtiar, and lawyer Junaedi Saibih. The acquittals were read by Chief Judge Effendi in a session at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Tuesday, 3 March 2026. ‘The defendants are to be acquitted immediately after this ruling is read,’ said Judge Effendi. The judge noted that Adhiya had his own role and responsibilities in this matter. The content was also produced to balance narratives that harmed the client of Marcella. By creating content and disseminating it with the help of 50 buzzers, Adhiya earned up to Rp 864.5 billion. However, the judge found that Adhiya’s actions were not intended to obstruct investigations or proceedings, but were part of the right to express oneself. ‘Having considered the legal facts revealed in the trial in connection with the applicable regulations, the panel of judges concluded that the defendant’s acts constitute freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution,’ the judge said. The content in the form of podcasts, discussions, and programmes produced by Tian Bahtiar was deemed by the judge to be journalistic products. The judge also did not find any malicious intent from Tian to obstruct investigations. Tian’s collaboration with Marcella, the judge clarified, was aimed at following the reporting undertaken by the prosecutors. Meanwhile, the receipt of money and its connection to the buzzer mobilisation cannot be directly viewed as a criminal act but must be considered as part of democratic ethics. ‘Having considered that although it has also been proven that the defendant’s activity on social media earned a sum of money from witness Marcella Santoso provided by her staff, this does not automatically qualify as malice behind a sequence of actions to prevent, obstruct, or derail investigations, prosecutions, and court proceedings against the accused or witnesses in the corruption case, but rather more about democratic ethics,’ the judge said.