Widespread Response to Acquittals of Three Defendants in Obstruction of Investigation

Several parties welcomed the acquittal verdicts of three defendants in the case of alleged obstruction of investigation in corruption cases, namely Tian Bahtiar, Adhiya Muzakki, and Junaidi Saibih. The Association of Legal Journalists (Iwakum) said the acquittal of former Jak TV News Director Tian Bahtiar on charges of obstruction of investigation in the corruption cases involving crude palm oil (CPO), tin, and sugar imports was part of safeguarding press freedom. ‘Iwakum respects and appreciates the panel of judges’ considerations that emphasise protection for journalistic work,’ said Iwakum chairman Irfan Kamil in a written statement on Wednesday (4/3/2026). ‘This sets an important precedent that press products must be placed within the framework of the Press Law and ethical mechanisms, not simply dragged into criminal court,’ he added. Kamil also praised the judges’ reference to Constitutional Court Decision No. 145/PUU-XXIII/2025 in the material testing submitted by Iwakum. According to him, the reference shows that in judging this case, the panel of judges maintained freedom of the press as a constitutional right to be protected. ‘Iwakum views this decision as reinforcing the boundary between criticism, reporting, and alleged obstruction of justice. Not every report that is deemed to harm a party can be qualified as obstruction of justice,’ Kamil said. Iwakum Secretary-General Ponco Sulaksono added that the consideration is important as a reaffirmation of the boundary between journalistic work and alleged criminal acts. ‘Law enforcement remains important, but the space for press freedom guaranteed by the constitution should not be eroded. Disputes over journalistic products should be resolved through the right to reply and right to correction via the Press Council,’ he said. Meanwhile, the Central Leadership Council of the Indonesian Advocates Association (DPP AAI), led by Arman Hanis, praised the Jakarta Corruption Court’s panel of judges for acquitting advocate Junaidi Saibih (vrijspraak). ‘The verdict confirms that the actions taken by the person concerned were part of the legitimate practice of advocacy and protected by law,’ said Deputy Chairman of DPP AAI Defrizal Djamaris. Defrizal noted that DPP AAI also lauded the Constitutional Court’s decision in Case No. 71/PUU-XXIII/2025, dated 2 March 2026, which formed one of the bases for consideration in the case against Junaidi. ‘Through that decision, the Constitutional Court explicitly clarifies the limits of applying obstruction of justice provisions in Article 21 of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Act, thereby closing space for interpretations that could criminalise the practice of advocacy,’ he said. He further assessed that this ruling is not only a personal victory for Junaidi Saibih, but an important reinforcement of the supremacy of law, the protection of the legal profession, and guarantees of independent advocacy in Indonesia. ‘DPP AAI emphasises that from the outset they believed that Junaidi Saibih’s actions were purely part of performing the duties of an advocate in defending clients, protected by law,’ he said. On the other hand, VISI LAW OFFICE lawyer Donal Fariz regarded the acquittal of Junaidi and journalist Tian Bachtiar as correct. ‘The judges’ reasoning, referring to the trial facts, shows that the elements of obstructing investigations under Article 21 of the Tindak Pidana Korupsi Act were not met,’ he said. Donal noted that judges strengthen the position of advocates and journalists who undertake non-litigation efforts such as seminars, reporting, and exposing facts outside the courtroom, as legitimate and deserving of protection. ‘We view this Tipikor Court ruling as a positive development for the protection of the work of advocates and journalists under the law. Of course this cannot be detached from the two latest MK rulings: MK Decision No 145/PUU-XXIII/2025 and No 71/PUU-XXIII/2025,’ he said. ‘Going forward, this Tipikor Court ruling should serve as a final point for law enforcers to avoid easily using broad provisions to criminalise advocates and journalists in their professional practice,’ Donal added.