TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Lawyer and human rights activist Todung Mulya Lubis admitted that on April 27 and 28 last week, the day of the Bali Nine (minus one, in the end) execution, he had a difficult time holding back his tears. With a heavy heart, he escorted the two convicted drug smugglers, Australian Andrew Chan and his fellow countryman Myuran Sukumaran, to Nusakambangan Prison at Cilacap, Central Java. Todung found it difficult to think that Chan and Sukumaran would face the firing squad soon. Chan had, the day before he was put to death, married Febyanti Herewila in prison.
Todung said one of the prosecutors offered him access to the execution area, but he just could not do it. Instead, he chose to go back to his hotel and watch the execution on the television monitor. Even then he could not stop his tears. After 01:00 Wednesday early morning, Todung tweeted in his account, "I failed. I lost," followed by "I'm sorry."
Todung, 65, is the lawyer who represented Chan and Sukumaran since 2007. He has tried everything to prevent the two Australians from being sentenced to death for attempting to smuggle 8 kilograms of heroin. At first, he refused to be involved in the case, because it involved drugs. He finally agreed to represent both Chan and Sukumaran because he believes that the death penalty, no matter what the reason, cannot ever be justified.
Campaigning to eliminate the death penalty has been a cause of Todung since 1979. At that time, along with human rights lawyers Yap Thiam Hien and Mulyana W. Kusumah, he campaigned for the right to life. He once submitted a request to review the legislation on the death penalty at the Constitutional Court, and today he is submitting a review of the Constitution for the very same cause. In Todung's view, a person's right to life is absolute.
On Wednesday last week, a few hours after he returned to Jakarta, he met with Tempo reporters Isma Savitri and Rusman Paraqbueq for an interview at his office in Central Jakarta. His face was haggard, as if he'd not slept. In fact, he had missed lunch thanks to his busy schedule. Yet, as soon as he spoke about the death penalty and human rights, Todung became spirited again. "Enforcing the right to life is humanity's highest value," he said.
On occasion, recalling the final moments of the two Australians before their execution, he would become teary-eyed again. He fails to understand why Chan and Sukumaran, as well as the other executed inmates, were not pardoned by President Joko Widodo. "Why is there no mercy.."
What was Chan's and Sukumaran's final message to you?
I told Andrew, "I've done everything" I don't know what to do now. He asked me to pray with him and thanked me for helping him. When I bid Sukumaran farewell, he also thanked me for believing in them. He asked that there be no more executions after this one. "You're the only one who can do it," said Sukumaran. I cried.
Why did you agree to be their lawyer?
In 2007, I was asked by the Australian government through their lawyer to change the death sentence of Chan and Sukumaran. Australia hoped that their two citizens would not be sentenced to death. They would even accept a life sentence in prison, without remission. At first I refused to take the case because I regard drugs as a major problem. I know the suffering people go through because of drug addiction. I have a friend and family who have been victims. Julian McMahon, the Australian lawyer, asked me to look at the case from the human rights perspective. He said the death penalty contradicted human rights, and that as such I should handle the case. I finally agreed to take it.
What did you do first?
I checked the profiles of Sukumaran and Chan, and realized they came from poor backgrounds. Sukumaran's parents had divorced and the family barely met their basic needs. Meanwhile Chan was an ethnic Vietnamese street punk but from normal parents. But neither of them were drug dealers, just part of a network.
As Chan and Sukumuran's lawyer, were you ever challenged?
I was bullied, as if to infer that I got a lot of money from the narcotics syndicate. But I was just helping out in the context of humanity, not commercial interest, consistent with my opposition to the death penalty.
Mary Jane Veloso received much support in our social media, which led to the postponement of her execution. Is that just, given Chan's and Sukumaran's execution?
I am thankful that Mary Jane was not executed, because she is actually just a regular housewife. But I did ask that Chan and Sukumuran receive the same treatment, because their testimonies were still needed by the Judicial Commission over the report I had submitted.
What was the report about?
The other lawyer for Chan and Sukumaran, Muhammad Rifan, had mentioned there was some negotiation or request for money, in exchange for a more lenient sentence less than 20 years [in jail]. He didn't mention the amount, but there was some negotiation. But that stopped because orders came from their superiors that Sukumaran and Chan had to be given the death penalty. So I asked the Judicial Commission to investigate this further. According to the commission chairman, it would be given top priority. He also approved of my suggestion to meet with Chan and Sukumaran. If the Judicial Commission was prepared to investigate, the witnesses should have been Chan, Sukumaran as well as Rifan. But now the two (Australians) have been executed.
Who were the superiors they mentioned?
It could be the Supreme Court or others. I don't know. I asked Sukumaran and Chan about it and Rifan said they did ask money from the two.
Did the Judicial Commission ever let the Attorney General's Office know that the testimonies of Chan and Sukumaran were needed?
Not as far as I know. Even Rifan hasn't been summoned yet. I have been called as the person who reported it, and I will go to court next week.
It seems no one dared to contradict the president.
Yes. Look, this country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which bans the death penalty. The ICCPR would allow limited death penalty for the most serious crime. In the United Nations resolution, the most serious crime is described as intentional killing, not drug-related crimes. That's why UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was disappointed that Indonesia still carries out death sentences.
But Ban Ki-moon said nothing when one of our migrant workers was executed in Saudi Arabia not long ago..
That's a valid criticism. But in accordance with international law assessment, intentional killing does not cover drugs. I am disappointed if someone says that the most serious crime is drug-related.
Read the full interview in this week’s edition of Tempo English Magazine
