Tag Archives: trial

KNPB: Buchtar Tabuni should be transferred to hospital for medical treatment

 

Bintang Papua, 23 August 2012

The National Committee for West Papua (KNPB) has urged the police authorities in West Papua to agree to the transfer of Buchtar Tabuni who is now in  custody and on trial to the special prison for narcotics offences  in order to ensure that he receives  the necessary treatment for a stomach complaint and low blood pressure.

Spokesman for the KNPB, Wim R. Medlama said that if he remains in a police cell, there is no guarantee that he will be able to get proper medical treatment.

The same matter was raised previously by Buchtar Tabuni during a court hearing in his own trial, shortly before Lebaran, the final days of Ramadhan.

The chairman of the panel of judges at the trial  said this was a matter for the police  and the prosecutor who are still engaged in getting him convicted of involvement in activities to cause damage to facilities in the prison where he was held.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Paniai branch of the KNPB strongly condemned the security forces, the TNI (army) and the police, for having conducted operations against the chairman of the KNPB, hunting down and arresting its members and urging that such operations should be immediately halted.

These shootings were taking place because Papuans continue to uphold the opinions they have held since 1961.

All the efforts being made such as the setting up a development agency known as the UP4B to improve the standard of living of the Papuan people will never halt the resistance of the Papuan people.

‘The Papuan people will continue to wage resistance and the only way to end this is by holding a referendum in Papua,’ he said.

[Translated by TAPOL]

 

KNPB members unable to attend trial of Buchtar Tabuni

 

JUBI, 18 July 2012The first hearing in the trial of Buchtar Tabuni, chairman of the KNPB, the National Committee of West Papua took place but none of the thousands of members of the KNPB were present to give their support to the accused.

They were probably absent because of the circulation of text messages  and terror phone calls, giving them reason to believe that they would be included on the DPO, the  ‘wanted persons’ list and would be arrested and they didn’t want their names to be made public.

One man from the central highlands who did not want to give his name said that not all the members of the organisation were known to the police. ‘We dont want to have our names included on the ‘wanted’ list. Had we attended the trial, this would have helped.them..

He said that the absence of KNPB members at any of the trial hearings  would mean that the police succeeded in dampening the militancy of the KNPB.

But others who attended the trial said that the absence of KNPB members was a sign of who supports their struggle and who doesn’t support it. ‘It  proves,’ said one person, ‘who are the real friends and who are people who just want to take part in activities.’

But another person said that the KNPB members  were not prepared to take the risk of facing fabricated charges. They were protecting themselves by not attending the trial. ‘They probably don’t want to be charged with all manner of things,’ he said.

The police guard round the courthouse for the Buchtar trial was not as tight as the guard that was mounted when Forkorus Yaboisembut was on trial, when Brimob troops were guarding the courthouse. Nor were there as many people attending the trial of Buchtar as had attended the trial of Forkorus.

[Translated by TAPOL]

[Comment: Following the brutal murder on 16 June of Mako Tabuni, a leader of the KNPB, members of the organisation certainly could not take the risk of attending any trial that would put them in danger of suffering the same fate. TAPOL]

 

Forkorus is waiting for international support: Verdict to be announced on 16 March

Bintang Papua, 12 March 2012<Illustration at the beginning of the report shows the defendants addressing their sympathisers outside the court.>

The  twelfth hearing of the trial of the five defendants – Forkorus Yaboisembut (‘President of the Federal Republic of West Papua), Edison Waromi (‘prime minister’). Agustinus M Sanany Kraar, Selpius Bobii, and Dominikus Sorabut – was held in the Jayapura district court on 12 March. As had happened at the time of previous hearings,  a large crowd had gathered along the Abepura highway, causing a traffic jam around the courthouse, because of the presence of security force people who were also trying to regulate the traffic.

The defendants also stuck to their routine of saying prayers before the hearing and as well as giving speeches afterwards.

After the hearing concluded, Forkorus and his co-defendants  left the courthose while singing hymns making speeches in which they said that  reject the trial and reject the whole process of charging them with makar – treason. They also said that what they wanted was their unconditional release and they were now awaiting  responses from international lawyers who they had approached for international support. They said that none of the charges against  them were true but were the result of manipulations.

At 8.51 local time, the five defendants arrived at the Jayapura courthouse and as they got down from the coach, they sang hymns together with their supporters and  members of their families for fifteen minutes. This slightly delayed the start of the hearing.

At 9.05, the panel of judges consisting of  five people took their positions on the bench along with two secretaries.

The chairman of the panel of judges had to delay the start of the hearing briefly  because the chief prosecutor had not yet arrived.

This session was held to hear the response by the prosecutor – replik – to the defence statement by the defendants as well as by their legal team.

The chief prosecutor, Julius Teuf said that they firmly rejected the defence statement  as well as the statements made by each of the defendants.Teuf then said that they stood by their earlier  demand that the five defendants should be sentenced to five years imprisonment.

Freddy Latunussa, an expert member of the defence legal team, said that the statement by the chief prosecutor that the defendants had tried, called upon and urged  others to take part in an act of treason  had not been proven under Article  106 of the Criminal Code as had been alleged by the prosecution.

According to the observations of Bintang Papua, the defence team of lawyers  rejected all the demands  made against the defendants as stated in the Replik because the Criminal Code does not allow statements to be read out but should have been presented in writing. As the panel of judges had previously said that this should have been done in writing, the chairman of the panel said that they had given the prosecutors three days to do this in accordance with an agreement reached during a previous hearing.

A 9.20, the chairman of the panel of judges closed the hearing  and said that the trial would continue on Friday, 16 March, when the panel of judges would announce their verdict.

Stop criminalising lawyers and human rights activists in makar cases

JUBI, 5 March 2012
Chairman of the Garda KPP P Bovit Bofra (Jubi / Arjuna)

 

Bearing in mind the continual terrorising of defence lawyers during the makar (treason) trial  [now under way in Jayapura] and  of human rights activists as well as journalists covering the trial, the central executive of GARDA-P , the Movement for People’s Democracy has called upon the security forces to put an end to all of their attempts to silence these people.

In a press release issued by GARDA-P on 5 March, it called for an end to the criminalisation of the lawyers defending Forkorus Yabisembut and his four co-defendants. They also urged the Indonesian government to  dismiss the head of the Public Prosecutors Office, Julius D Teuf, SH and replace him because he has been deliberately attempting to criminalise the defence team of Forkorus and his co-defendants.

‘We also call on the prosecutors to stop their questioning during which they have made offensive and insulting remarks  about the defendants and also about the Papuan people during the trial.We call for the unconditional release of the defendants and for an end to all the violence and  prohibitions  against journalists wanting to report the trial hearings because the trial is being held in public.’

GARDA-P said that during makar trials in Papua, the defence lawyers  are always being subjected to threats and terror by the security forces because they are defending persons who are being charged with makar.

Not only the lawyers but also the judges  are threatened and subjected  to interruptions, to ensure that the hearings comply with the interests of the state. Not only that, but also the bags of the defence lawyers are searched  before they enter the court.for the trial of Forkorus and his co-defendants.

GARDA-P  also said that the police on duty frequently carry weapons outside the courthouse in order to terrorise the defendants and their lawyers. and seek to threaten journalists who are reporting the trial which is open to the public.

GARDA-P regards these actions as being attempts to influence the court proceedings  in order to ensure that the police and the prosecutors make heavier demands for those facing  makar charges.

‘During the hearing on 24 February, while witnesses were being questioned, the prosecutor was constantly interrupting the questioning which greatly angered the defence lawyer, Gustaf Kawar, with the prosecutor now seeking to exclude Gustaf Kawar from the defence team. Such actions are an attempt to cause division (among the lawyers) and to make things more difficult for the defendants.’

Defence lawyer in Forkorus trial to be reported to the police

Bintang Papua, 1 March 2012

As a result of an incident during the 24 February hearing in the trial of Forkorus Yaboisembut, it is possible that a member of the defence team  is to be reported   to the police by the chief prosecutor at the trial.

One of the prosecutors, Julius Teuf, said that the problem is still under discussion at the prosecutor’s office. ‘But after having studying the matter and seeing whether we have strong evidence, it is clear that we will report a member of the defence team, Gustaf Kawar, for inappropriate behaviour during the hearing on 24 February.’

The incident occurred as the defence lawyer was interrogating a witness when there were a number of interruptions from the prosecutors. He therefore shouted to the prosecutor: ‘Cant you use your brain, I am still talking?’

In response, the prosecutor later said: ‘Why did he say such a thing? If I dont have a brain, how is it that I am sitting here as a prosecutor, an employee of the state as part of its legal apparatus?’

For his part, Gustaf Kawar said: ‘It is beyond comprehension that the prosecutor’s team will report me to the police. It is very usual for statements like that to be made during the course of any trial.’ He went on to explain what had happened.

‘The incident occurred while the lawyer was questioning one of the witnesses and the prosecutor kept interrupting me which is why I responding eventually by saying. ‘You should use your brain, I am still speaking so please be patient.’

According to Kawar, the prosecutor was very offended by these words, whereas it often occurs that words are used by either side or by the defendants in the course of a trial, causing tensions. He also said that he had reported the matter to the Indonesian association of jurists, Paradi.

The secretary of the central council of Peradi. Bob Wahyu Wibowo,  said that there was a general understanding  between the chief of police  and the leaders of Peradi, espressing their concern.  These words were said  during the source of the trial of Forkorusa and colleagues and what the lawyer said was all within  the framework of pursuing the defence of his client.’ He also referred to the law on advocates No 18/2003  which states that  a lawyer shall not be charged  for either  a criminal or a civil offence while in the process of performing his professional duties.

Kawar said: ‘I am a lawyer, one of the pillars of law enforcement. Some of us have things to support us during a trial such as the police who carry arms, but we lawyers have nothing. yet as a lawyer we can be arrested and face charges.’