Justice for Andrie Yunus: Military Accountability in Jakarta

On 10 June 2026, a Jakarta military court handed down sentences of up to three years in prison to four Indonesian armed‑force personnel for their role in a pre‑meditated acid attack on human‑rights lawyer Andrie Yunus.

Yunus, a 27‑year‑old Deputy Coordinator at the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (KontraS), had publicly recorded a podcast criticizing the expanding influence of the military in civilian affairs. While riding a motorcycle in central Jakarta, he was targeted by a team of four soldiers from the National Armed Forces (TNI) intelligence unit. The assailants hurled hydrochloric acid at his face, inflicting severe burns over 20 % of his body and permanently damaging his right eye.

The military court found the four defendants—three navy marines (Sergeant Edi Sudarko, First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi Cahyono, and Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetya) and an air‑force officer (Lieutenant Sami Lakka)—guilty of serious pre‑meditated assault. In the sentencing, Captain Sudarko received the longest term (three years) and the other officers received two and a half years, two years and eighteen months, and one and a half years respectively. Sudarko and Cahyono were also dishonorably discharged.

Judge Fredy Isnartanto underscored that the attack was “not influenced by any chain of command,” emphasizing “the defendants, as TNI service members, betrayed their duties and damaged the image of the Indonesian military.” The court noted their motive was “opposition to Yunus’ criticisms” and called the attack “an act of personal outrage designed to ‘teach him a lesson.’”

Human‑rights groups slammed the verdict as notably lenient. Amnesty International Indonesia warned that the relatively light prosecution “reinforces concerns the trial risked becoming a ‘show trial.’” The National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) had earlier indicated a broader, coordinated operation may have involved additional individuals, beyond the four defendants. Komnas HAM and civil‑society coalitions urged the identification and prosecution of higher‑level actors who may have ordered or funded the assault.

State‑level reactions reflected a broader debate over civil‑military relations in Indonesia. The chief of the military’s intelligence unit resigned in March, described as an act of responsibility. In the months leading up to the attack, Andrie Yunus had interrupted a closed‑door parliamentary meeting attended by military officials, where revisions to military law that could elevate the armed forces’ role in civilian posts were debated. His outspoken stance—that the military was the mastermind behind nationwide protests in August 2025—had drawn repeated intimidation.

The barangay of the court’s ruling signals a nascent shift toward military accountability. Yet, critics retain questions about the scope of justice, urging that any higher‑level connections be revealed and appropriate civilian courts engaged. Only through such comprehensive accountability can the tradition of impunity that has plagued past activist attacks be dismantled.

Conclusion

Indonesia’s military court ruling marks a significant step toward protecting human‑rights defenders from the armed forces. While the sentences are a start, sustaining momentum for broader reforms and unblanket justice remains essential for the nation’s democratic future.