In the country’s legal system, witnesses are often reluctant to reveal crucial information pertaining to criminal or graft cases from physical threats that often emerge
em>In the country’s legal system, witnesses are often reluctant to reveal crucial information pertaining to criminal or graft cases from physical threats that often emerge. Such threats are often more dire if witnesses provide information on graft cases involving high-profile politicians or government officials. A commissioner with the Witness and Victims Protection Agency (LPSK), Lili Pintauli Siregar recently talked to The Jakarta Post’s Rabby Pramudatama regarding the effectiveness of the witness protection program.
Question: So how does the LPSK actually protect witnesses?
Answer: Based on the 2006 law on protection for witness and victims, the LPSK makes a contract with the witness for a certain period of time. The contract can be proposed by the witness or law enforcing institutions. Previously, we made yearly contracts with witnesses but we cut the term to six months depending on the need from witnesses.
What is in the contract?
Under the contract, we are required to provide protection to a witness, ranging from readying personal body guards to giving legal assistance and providing psychological counseling. The trade-off is that the witness is willing to appear in court to give his or her testimony. Also in the contract, the witness cannot withhold any crucial information.
Have these contracts been effective?
It is actually difficult for the LPSK to give one standard level of protection to all witnesses. We have set out what kind of protection is necessary, but we always have to compromise on what kind of protection they can demand. There are several grades or levels of protection that we can provide — from maximum security protection to the most relaxed type. We usually set that out clearly in the beginning before signing a contract. We cannot apply the same type of protection to all witnesses because we always have to consider the personal background of witnesses.
What is the role model for the LPSK?
The LPSK, which was established in 2006, has learned how to provide effective protection from the US Marshals Service. If we compare our procedures with them, their procedures are much more strict than ours. With the US Marshals, witnesses cannot refuse the offer to be put in a safe house. Here in Indonesia, we find it very difficult to implement such a procedure. We also have a different culture. The way I see it, the US Marshals tries to keep its officers on a low profile because they may become a target if they become too conspicuous.
Here in Indonesia, many of the LPSK’s officers can be seen flaunting their badges in public.
What are the problems that hamper the LPSK in becoming more effective?
Coordination with other law enforcement agencies has been difficult. We still regularly ask the police to assign their officers to the LPSK to help us as personal security guards for witnesses, but we still lack those resources. The LPSK also needs to establish closer cooperation with the directorate general of penitentiaries because based on our previous experience, there are witnesses who claim to have received threats in jail. It’s a public secret that the country’s prisons are prone to bribery and breaches of security procedures.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.