Military Court Sentences Officers for Acid Attack on Activist

An Indonesian military court has sentenced four military officers to prison terms ranging from 12 to 18 months for their roles in the 2021 acid attack on human rights activist Novel Baswedan. The court’s decision, which human rights groups have criticized as overly lenient, highlights ongoing concerns regarding the independence and transparency of Indonesia’s military justice system when handling cases involving service members.

How the Military Court Handled the Prosecution

The military tribunal, convened in Jakarta, found the four defendants—identified as members of the Indonesian police’s Mobile Brigade—guilty of premeditated assault. According to court records cited by Reuters, the prosecution had initially requested prison terms of only one year, citing the defendants’ cooperation and lack of prior criminal records. The final sentences, while slightly exceeding the prosecution’s request, remain significantly lower than the maximum penalties for assault under the Indonesian Criminal Code.

Legal observers note that the trial took place within the military justice framework because the perpetrators were active-duty officers at the time of the incident. This jurisdictional choice has been a point of contention for civil society organizations, who argue that military courts often prioritize the reputation of the institution over the rights of victims.

Why Rights Groups Criticize the Military Justice System

Human rights advocates, including the Commission for the Disappearance of Victims of Violence (KontraS), have long argued that the military justice system fosters a culture of impunity. According to reports from The Jakarta Post, critics point to a pattern of “lenient sentencing” that fails to serve as a deterrent for future abuses of power.

The discrepancy between the severity of the crime—which left the activist with permanent eye damage—and the relatively short prison sentences has fueled public calls for reform. Human rights monitoring groups maintain that cases involving crimes against civilians should be tried in public, civilian courts to ensure greater transparency and accountability. The Tempo English news outlet has frequently highlighted how the current legal structure effectively shields military personnel from the rigorous scrutiny found in the civilian judiciary.

What Happens Next for Judicial Reform?

The sentencing has reignited the national debate regarding the revision of the 1997 Military Court Law. Currently, the law mandates that military personnel are tried by military tribunals regardless of the nature of their offenses, provided they involve fellow soldiers or occur in a military context.

Legislative efforts to bring military personnel under civilian jurisdiction for crimes against civilians have stalled in the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR). As noted by UCA News, the lack of political consensus remains the primary barrier to structural change. For now, victims of military violence continue to face a justice system that many analysts argue is structurally incapable of providing the level of accountability demanded by international human rights standards.

Key Facts at a Glance

• Crime: Premeditated acid attack causing permanent physical injury.
• Sentences: Ranging from 12 to 18 months imprisonment.
• Jurisdiction: Indonesian Military Court system.
• Primary Concern: Alleged institutional bias and lack of transparency compared to civilian courts.