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.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsProsecuting young citizens for loving their nation
From the mass arrest of student protesters to the high-profile prosecution of a former minister, Indonesia’s judicial system is being systematically weaponized to crush dissent and pave the way for an institutionalized autocracy.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Nadiem Makarim, former education minister and cofounder of ride-hailing firm Gojek, speaks with his legal team during a hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court on May 13, 2026, over alleged corruption related to the procurement of Google Chromebook laptops. Prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) are seeking an 18-year prison sentence, alleging that Nadiem manipulated the procurement process and enriched himself during his tenure as education minister. (Antara/M. Risyal Hidayat)
I
ndonesia’s contemporary judicial landscape reveals a worrying trajectory toward authoritarian politics. This shift is characterized by the autocratization of the legal system, deploying legal instruments to suppress dissent and targeting those framed as political opponents, or at minimum, those not aligned with the ruling coalition.
This reality is visible in at least three ongoing cases. The first involves the trials of demonstrators accused of inciting riots following national protests in August 2025. The second concerns the trial of former education, culture, research and technology minister Nadiem Anwar Makarim. The third is a trial at the Military Court involving four Indonesian Military (TNI) intelligence personnel alleged to be responsible for the acid attack on human rights worker Andrie Yunus.
During the August 2025 protests, Indonesian authorities executed the largest mass arrest of pro-democracy activists since the 1998 Reform, detaining 6,719 individuals, including prominent activists such as Bongka Dzakki Muzhaffar, Rifa Rahnabila, Khariq Anhar and Wawan Hermawan. Data from Amnesty International Indonesia confirms that 703 of the detainees faced prosecution across multiple jurisdictions, including Jakarta, Surabaya and Makassar. To date, 506 individuals have been convicted, while 27 remain on trial.
Rather than serving neutral justice, these judicial proceedings function to stigmatize youth dissent against economic privilege and state indifference. The executive branch under President Prabowo Subianto leveraged allegations of "treason" and "terrorism" to legitimize these prosecutions.
However, empirical evidence demonstrates that the demonstrations only degenerated into widespread rioting after a police tactical vehicle fatally struck an online motorcycle taxi driver, Affan Kurniawan. By refusing to establish an independent fact-finding team, the administration intentionally avoids identifying the distinct actors responsible for the subsequent arson and looting, thereby sustaining a politicized narrative that criminalizes the broader pro-democracy movement.
Nadiem is accused of corruption regarding the 2020–2022 education digitalization and Chromebook procurement programs. In its closing arguments, state prosecutors demanded an 18-year prison sentence, a Rp 1 billion (US$56,436) fine or 190 days’ imprisonment in lieu of payment, and restitution orders totaling Rp 809.5 billion and Rp 4.8 trillion, citing these assets as disproportionate to lawful income.
In court, prosecutors operate under an effective “assumption of guilt” toward the accused. Numerous irregularities during the proceedings, including the detention of Nadiem before the state’s financial loss figure had been officially determined by the AGO, create an impression that the prosecution is politically driven rather than carefully grounded. Furthermore, deploying military personnel instead of civilian security for a civilian trial violates statutory norms, signals a military encroachment into the civil judicial sphere and creates an escalatory atmosphere capable of intimidating witnesses and judges.
