O

ne of the reasons corruption is difficult to uproot in the country, despite the hard work of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), is the risk of prosecution that is intended to kill the messenger, as in the case of human rights activist Haris Azhar.

Haris, chairman of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), has been accused of defamation for posting on his Facebook account a statement from executed drug kingpin Freddy Budiman, who claimed to have received assistance from the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) and customs and excise officials, as well as paying bribes to National Police and Indonesian Military (TNI) officials to keep his illicit business running unhindered.

The BNN, TNI and National Police have filed a defamation report against Haris with the National Police’s detective body, accusing him of violating the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, which will soon be amended. The existing law says defamation is punishable with a maximum prison sentence of six years, enabling the police to detain suspects.

The police have yet to name Haris a suspect, but there have been plenty of examples of the vulnerability of messengers and whistle-blowers to backlash in the form of defamation charges. A housewife was detained for months pending a trial for defaming an international hospital in Tangerang, Banten, via email a few years ago, prompting then president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to intervene.

In such asymmetric affairs, thankfully the public has acted in favor of the weak, the messengers. In the Tangerang case the public initiated a fundraising movement to help the defendant pay her fine. Now pressure is building for the BNN, police and TNI to verify Freddy’s allegations, rather than shifting the burden of proof to Haris.

The chorus of public criticism and the social movement against attempts to charge Haris for sharing Freddy’s accounts are developments that we should celebrate, as they characterize a living democracy. Public participation is not only reflected in high voter turnout in elections, but also in controversies involving state institutions.

Whatever the reasons, the defamation report against Haris constitutes criminalization that will serve to divert public attention from the core issue of rotten apples that spoil the barrel in our fight against drugs, and therefore cannot be justified. Nor can attempts to comb through Haris’ past mistakes just to dent his credibility if the defamation report is found to be groundless.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has made it clear that Freddy’s testimony that Haris shared with the public should be examined. It would be very easy in fact to crosscheck the shocking revelations given the institutions’ networks and data, and as Haris named a number of other people who also heard Freddy’s account.

To avoid any conflicts of interest and possible misuses of power, the investigation into the alleged role of certain officials in the country’s drug mafia should be mandated to an independent team. Now that Freddy has been executed, silencing Haris will only spark suspicion that moves are underway to cover up taints in the war on drugs.