On 10 June 2026, the Jakarta Military Court II-08 delivered its verdict against four members of the Headquarters Detachment of the Strategic Intelligence Agency (Denma BAIS) of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) for their involvement in the acid attack against KontraS activist and human rights defender Mr Andrie Yunus. The court sentenced Second Sergeant Edi Sudarko to three years’ imprisonment and dismissal from military service, First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi to two years and six months’ imprisonment and dismissal, Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetya to two years’ imprisonment, and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka to one year and six months’ imprisonment without dismissal. The panel of judges found the defendants guilty of premeditated assault causing injury but rejected allegations that the attack constituted part of a broader intelligence operation. The court considered the damage caused to the TNI’s reputation and the serious injuries sustained by the victim as aggravating factors, while accepting the defendants’ cooperation and lack of prior convictions as mitigating circumstances.
The verdict differed from the demands previously submitted by the military prosecutor, who had requested uniform prison sentences of two years and six months for all four defendants without recommending dismissal from military service. The prosecutor characterised the attack as an act of “personal revenge” that caused severe suffering to the victim and harmed the reputation of the armed forces nationally and internationally. However, both the prosecution and the court proceeded on the basis of assault charges rather than attempted murder, despite findings by the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) indicating that the attack involved a larger group of perpetrators and formed part of a structured operation extending beyond the four soldiers brought before the military tribunal.
The outcome of the proceedings drew sharp criticism from national and international observers. Human Rights Watch described the lenient sentences as “a mockery of justice”, arguing that the case demonstrates longstanding deficiencies within Indonesia’s military justice system, including a lack of transparency, independence and impartiality. Elaine Pearson, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, called on the Indonesian authorities to amend domestic legislation to ensure that military personnel accused of serious human rights violations are tried before civilian courts. The Advocacy Team for Democracy likewise maintained that the military proceedings failed to deliver accountability and risked reinforcing patterns of impunity by limiting responsibility to a small number of direct perpetrators whilst disregarding allegations of wider involvement through the chain of command.
Legal experts further argued that the military court’s decision should not bring the case to a close. Following a pre-trial ruling by the South Jakarta District Court ordering the Jakarta Metropolitan Police to continue their investigation to provide legal certainty. Scholars and human rights advocates stress that the police remain obliged to pursue all individuals suspected of involvement, including civilians and those who may have ordered the attack.
The case reflects an increasingly institutionalised pattern of impunity through military courts and undermines public confidence in the rule of law. Constitutional and criminal law experts similarly highlighted the unresolved dualism between military and civilian jurisdictions and urged the Supreme Court to provide clear guidance to prevent legal uncertainty and ensure equal accountability before the law.
UN experts have expressed concern over Indonesia’s decision to prosecute the attack against Andrie Yunus before a military court rather than the civilian justice system. They warned that trying the case in Military Court II-08 Jakarta risks reinforcing longstanding patterns of impunity, limited transparency and weak accountability for alleged human rights violations involving members of the armed forces. The experts criticised the use of the lesser charge of “premeditated aggravated assault” and the portrayal of the attack as a personal dispute, arguing that this fails to reflect the gravity of the life-threatening assault and obscures potential responsibility of those who may have ordered or orchestrated it. They called on the Indonesian authorities to investigate and prosecute the case through civilian courts in accordance with international human rights standards, ensure public scrutiny and impartiality.
