TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The demand from a group calling itself the 212 Alumni makes no sense. They have threatened to bring huge crowds onto the streets during the hearing of the case review petition of former Jakarta governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, also known as Ahok. They are demanding the judges reject the legal challenge. The Supreme Court justices who will make the ruling must not be intimidated. There must be no repeat of the original Ahok verdict, which the judges decided because of mob pressure.
The North Jakarta District Court jailed Ahok for two years last March. The judges found him guilty of blasphemy for his speech mentioning the Quranic verse Al-Maidah 51. The verdict was handed down following pressure from the group named Defenders of Islam, which organized the mass demonstration on December 2, 2016 (later known as the 212 action) that attracted hundreds of thousands of people.
From the start, this pressure was a part of the legal process that hunkered down on Ahok. Fearing mob intimidation, the police quickly named him a suspect. The court followed suit, acting incredibly swiftly. After being found guilty, unfortunately, Ahok decided to retract his appeal brief, saying that he did not want the political brouhaha to continue as a result of his appeal process. Ahok is now in jail. He also lost the gubernatorial election. He is now an ordinary citizen who is exercising his right to obtain justice.
The mounting of a legal challenge is a right guaranteed by law. And Ahok has a good reason. He is putting forward new evidence in the form of the 18-month jail sentence handed down to Buni Yani by the Bandung District Court. The lecturer at an institute in Jakarta was found guilty of editing the video of Ahoks Al-Maidah speech. The edited video subsequently went viral and triggered the anti-Ahok demonstrations. Ahok's legal team is convinced that without that video recording, the Al-Maidah case would never have made it to court.
The Supreme Court justices who will rule on the petition should consider this new evidence. As well as the Buni Yani verdict, the Court should also consider a number of irregularities that occurred during Ahok's first trial. These include the weakness of the indictment, meaning the prosecution was unable to prove the main charge, and the testimony favorable to Ahok that was ignored by the judges.
We hope that the Supreme Court justices think clearly and are not intimidated. The Ahok case is no mere ordinary criminal matter. There were clear political nuances in the verdict Ahok received. The petition hearing is another important test for our legal system: do the justices have the courage to rule on the challenge based entirely on legal considerations, and not because of intimidation? No less fundamental is another test: will this country become a mobocracy nation vulnerable to mob intimidation?
Those organizing the demonstrations also need to show restraint. When they act wrongly in trying to force their wishes, they should realize a legal challenge is the right of a convicted person to defend themselves. The concern that Ahoks hearing will put him back on the political stage is childish and shows a lack of self-confidence.
Read the full article in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine
