TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Will we ever get closer to the truth?
Protests arose over the lengthy sessions and questions facing the witness, who happens to be a dignitary of a major religious group in Indonesia. Is there anything wrong with that?
Change Size
Islam Defenders Front (FPI) leader Rizieq Shihab speaks to reporters before facing police questioning at the Jakarta Police headquarters on Feb. 1, 2017 for alleged treason. The police also arrested a woman who allegedly had intimate conversations with Rizieq, and later raided her house in East Jakarta. (Antara/Akbar Nugroho Gumay)
O
ffending a witness is nothing new in an Indonesian court of law. The late lawyer Yap Thiam Hien was once accused of insulting officials through his defense in court.
To defend his client in a commercial dispute, Yap was trying to prove that his client had been extorted by the accuser and her connections. As Yap was trying to prove a relationship between the witness, who happened to be a prosecutor at the appellate level, and the accuser, a wellconnected businesswoman, Yap asked whether the witness had slept with the accuser.
This question was seen as slanderous by the witness, which soon resulted in Yap being arrested. Yap was found guilty of defamation but was later acquitted in the appeal.
The Supreme Court stated that essentially the defense of a client by an advocate was done out of necessity. Yap’s words and actions were deemed to be within the boundaries of the defense of his client.
The case became a landmark for advocates’ immunity. Fortunately, Article 16 of Law No. 18/2003 on advocates supports that immunity by stating that advocates cannot be sued, neither under civil nor criminal laws, in performing their professional duties in good faith for the purpose of defending their clients in courts of law.
A unique issue cropped up recently, where the offended is not the witness himself, but a community of which the witness is a respected leader.
Protests arose over the lengthy sessions and questions facing the witness, who happens to be a dignitary of a major religious group in Indonesia. Is there anything wrong with that?
