Old case leaves many facing threat of relocation

A civil case may force the relocation of 160 houses, dozens of regional administration institutions and facilities, other buildings and a church in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT).

In January 1966, the Kupang District Court heard a dispute regarding a plot of land located in Kupang city’s three subdistricts: Naikoten 1, Naikoten 2 and Oebobo.

The verdict was considered legally binding as the losing party did not appeal to a higher court.

Kupang District Court chief Imam Su’udi stated in a letter issued on Sept. 22, 2010, that the verdict had actually been executed on June 29, 2004, but was not finished because of the presidential elections.

“The execution planned by the district court was a follow up on 2004,” Su’udi wrote in the letter.

The district court had reportedly also taken measurements in preparation to execute the verdict.

Among the government facilities believed to be affected are the official residence of the NTT governor on Jl. El Tari, which was built in 2003 with a provincial budget of Rp 4 billion. Some of the residents whose houses would be affected confirmed that they had received letters from the district court, reminding them to leave the premises.

“The problem is that we all have certificates of ownership. There is no way that we will leave the place where we have been living for 40 years,” Koamesah, one of the residents, said.

A lawyer for the residents, Alex Frans, said in Kupang that his office had sent letters to related institutions, including the Ombudsman, Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the district court’s ruling.

He said there were indications that the verdict was fake.

“In 1966, we still used the old spelling of the Indonesian language but the verdict, right from page 1 to page 36, was written with the new spelling,” Alex said, showing examples from the ruling.

Another odd fact, he said, included the use of the Rp 25 stamp, which was issued only later in 1973.

“How could a ruling issued on Jan. 14, 1966, use a stamp from 1973?” Alex said.

He urged the district court to clarify the matter, saying that hundreds of residents living in disputed areas were worried.