Font size: 
For many, the retraction of the testimonies from Zondhy Anwar and Arifin Rahman – both former employees of Muchdi Purwopranjano at the National Intelligence Agency (BIN) – is a reminder that the institution remains separate from the state’s rule of law. Implicating the former deputy head for the murder of prominent human rights activist, Munir Said Thalib, has proved difficult. Both witnesses withdrew their previous statements in a recent court session: one claimed to have been under pressure during the police investigation, and the other denied having ever made his.
These inconsistencies are a stark reminder of the country’s widespread culture of impunity – perhaps the largest obstacle confronting Munir’s murder case.
This was not always the case, however. The arrest of Muchdi in June 2007 had afforded hope for an end to national impunity, but the little headway achieved since has now been made clear: four years since Munir died of arsenic poisoning on a Garuda Indonesian Airways flight on Sept. 7, 2004, and the alleged involvement of high-ranking government officials in the conspiracy has yet to be clarified.
The existence of an impartial, independent, and adequately functioning legal system within Indonesia’s so-called “free” democracy is thus questionable. The investigation’s obstacles relate mainly to the inability to properly investigate BIN, and if approving the withdrawal of key testimonies about the agency is anything to go by, then the Indonesian legal system appears ineffective in controlling the executive branch of its government.
One cannot help but wonder who exactly BIN is answerable to. The days under Suharto have passed, as has the bizarre dual function, or “dwi fungsi,” of military officials serving in civilian Cabinets. Yet a transparent system of checks and balances, normally characteristic of democratic governments, has yet to emerge in Indonesia.
In theory, the purpose of an intelligence agency is to provide the government with information related to national security and defense. It should aid the government in its policy-making process, but not actually influence the nature of the policies themselves. History shows that the agency’s influence on policy did once exist in Indonesia, through the dwi fungsi function, since military officials were closely related to the intelligence agency. But restructuring movements since should have demolished such defects in the system.
BIN’s authority in conducting independent activities, practiced with what appears to be a high degree of autonomy, is something the Indonesian state should consider a defect. After all, Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution, together with more recent updates enshrining fundamental human rights, is based on the rule of law. It is precisely this element, however, that is missing from the country’s most well-known human rights case.
Where, one might ask, is the justice in a murder case that has struggled to progress through the country’s judicial process for over four years? Where, one might also ask, is the justice in allowing the victim’s murderers to walk free by failing to conduct a complete trial?
If even the most significant of cases is facing difficulties moving forward within the Indonesian judicial process, it is doubtful that lesser-known cases involving human rights defenders or extrajudicial killings have been more successful. The fact that the nation is founded upon a concept that is barely visible in the country is laughable.
The course of the investigation into Munir’s murder has brought with it a mixture of hope and disappointment. Recent developments in Muchdi’s ongoing trial have reflected this erratic process. Ultimately, however, the seriousness of the disappointments – the institutional flaws that have been exposed in the process, including impunity and the absence of an independent judicial system – lead one to doubt the possibility of real and imminent change. After all, the country has undergone ten years of its national reformation program, its “reformasi,” and still no changes other than very superficial ones have been made.
Munir’s case is a telling indicator of the level of the state’s commitment to promoting and protecting human rights. The road ahead for current cases, as well as future ones, that are banking on legal and institutional processes made easier by the success of Munir, is still unknown. The difficulty of breaking old habits seems to suggest that we might have a while to wait for positive developments to come.
--
(Alexandra Da Roza recently earned a master’s degree in economics and international relations from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. She is curently serving as a volunteer at the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong, assisting with the group's work for human rights in Indonesia.)
