TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - In the name of humanity and justice, the government must continue to seek the murderers of human rights activist Munir Said Thalib.
The Munir case is important because it represents the high stakes we have placed on the supremacy of the law in Indonesia. Even President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, when he was still in office, described this case as 'a test of our history'. Yudhoyono, unfortunately, failed this history test. The hope today is that President Joko Widodo will not incur the same mistake.
It will not be an easy task. The Jokowi government came on the scene just as the case is about to close its chapters. Munir's convicted murderer, Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto, was paroled two weeks ago. In 2008 he was sentenced to 20 years in jail but the sentence was eventually reduced to 14 years, after two judicial reviews and remissions given every year. He had served only two-thirds of his sentence.
Pollycarpus was found guilty of the premeditated death of Munir, a lawyer who fought for the rights of laborers and victims of violence. Based on the results of forensic tests on seven of his organs, carried out in a Seattle, USA laboratory, it was concluded that he was poisoned when he sat and drank at the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf restaurant at Changi Airport in Singapore. On that fateful September 7 evening 10 years ago, Munir was transiting on his way to Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where he planned to further his law studies.
Facts submitted in court prove that Pollycarpus, a Garuda Airline pilot who doubled as a freelance agent of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), ended Munir's life. Pollycarpus gave his business class seat to Munir to ensure there was enough time to carry out his crime. He was the person who gave Munir the poisoned drink.
But Pollycarpus must not have played a lone hand. Yet, so far the court has failed to bring to justice the intellectual actor or the mastermind behind Pollycarpus. Yes, Muchdi Purwoprandjono who was then BIN's deputy chief of operations, was tried for his alleged involvement in the case. But the judge found him not guilty. Voice recordings between Pollycarpus and Muchdi linking them to the crime were disproven when Muchdi showed a stamp in his passport that indicated he was in Malaysia at the time the incriminating conversation took place.
The prosecutor could have asked for a judicial review on the Muchdi case, because getting a stamp in one's passport without actually being physically in place, is not a difficult thing to do, particularly when it is needed for an intelligence operation.
The testimony of Budi Santoso, the former BIN director for operations planning and control should also be scrutinized more closely. To the investigators who questioned him in Kuala Lumpur, Budi, who was then a subordinate of Muchdi, clearly implicated his senior officer. A number of meetings between Pollycarpus and Muchdi were also verified by Budi. His testimony was recorded on video by the police.
This important testimony by Budi Santoso had actually been prepared by the police for the Muchdi trial. But then came reports from Budi who was overseas, that he would withdraw his testimony something he later denied. He reckoned they were just rumors to make him come home, where he would then be 'eliminated'.
Budi's testimony can be regarded as new-found evidence, a good justification for a judicial review of the case. To be sure the judge must have the courage to carry out a legal breakthrough so the testimony can be used in court. It would be good if the witness in question can appear in court, although his whereabouts are now unclear. There is also no definite word on whether he is still alive or dead.
Another trial featuring Muchdi would also open the possibility of revealing other actors in the crime. One of the names mentioned is that of the former BIN head, A.N. Hendropriyono. In his testimony, Budi Santoso confirmed Hendro's role. Munir was killed, according to Budi quoting Hendro, because he was suspected of having in his possession, data that could be used to 'sell the nation.'
A repeat investigation of the Munir case can hopefully reveal the motive for this heinous killing. He was murdered because he was carrying important documents to the Netherlands, or was his killing part of the political rivalry that was happening on the eve of the 2004 general elections?
Munir's death, like a tragic drama, may have led to the deaths of other vital witnesses. Ongen Latuihamallo, a spiritual singer who was questioned by the police because of his suspected involvement in Pollycarpus's plot, died following a fistfight caused by a minor traffic accident. Ongen never recovered consciousness after he was beaten up by the man who took offence at his driving. A priest who knew Ongen well enough to have heard his confessions, also died in mysterious circumstances.
The unexplained deaths of Munir and a number of key witnesses should classify this case as a crime against humanity, in fact a case of state-sponsored terrorism. The human rights court would be the most appropriate venue to expose this case.
The final decision rests with Joko Widodo. The president need not be held hostage by his aides, not even by Hendropriyono who is known to be close to the PDI-P chairperson, Megawati Soekarnoputri and who was an advisor to the government's transition team.
In the name of justice and humanity, Jokowi must make the Munir case a priority. (*)
Read the full story in this week's edition of Tempo English magazine
