Blasphemy verdict stuns legal experts
Jakarta mayor set to launch appeal bid
JAKARTA: As the jailed Christian governor of Jakarta prepared to appeal his two-year prison sentence for blasphemy, his conviction has renewed criticism of Indonesia’s notoriously capricious judiciary and set off a nationwide debate on the rights of minorities in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation.
Legal experts noted that the verdict seemed to be based more on public reaction to the governor’s comments than what he had actually said, in effect holding him accountable for the mass protests organised against him by hardline Islamist groups.
“That’s the problem with the blasphemy law,” said Bivitri Susanti, head of the Jakarta chapter of Indonesia’s Association of Constitutional Law Lecturers. “It’s not about the speech itself and whether it’s condemning Islam itself. It’s about whether society believes it’s wrong or annoys them.”
The governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, was convicted on Tuesday for comments he made in September challenging Muslim hardliners who argued that a verse in the Koran prohibited Muslims from voting for a non-Muslim. Purnama said those who made that argument were misleading Muslims, a statement interpreted by some as insulting the Koran and Islam.
Mass rallies were organised calling for his arrest, with some zealots demanding that the governor be put to death. Many analysts said that the protests had been orchestrated by his political rivals and that they were a strong factor in his 16-point defeat in last month’s election.
The verdict by the five-judge panel hearing his case repeatedly said that Purnama, popularly known as Ahok, had caused public unrest and offended the Muslim majority, citing an article in the decadesold blasphemy law banning “words that degrade, harass or insult a religion”.
Sidney Jones, director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, said the decision “underscored the rot at the core of the Indonesian legal system” and would further polarise the country.
“It isn’t the first time Indonesian judges showed no concern for evidence in a high-profile case, but it could be one of the most damaging,” Mr Jones wrote in a commentary for the Lowy Institute. “It instantly sent a signal that non-Muslims are lesser citizens.”
Legal experts said the ruling relied heavily on public anger from hardline Islamic groups, who have long opposed a Christian such as Purnama running Jakarta, and on the testimonies of “expert witnesses” on Islam and blasphemy — none of whom were present in September when the governor told a group of fishermen and local civil servants that it was acceptable to vote for a non-Muslim.
“I believe that the street protests influenced the judges’ ruling,” Mr Bivitri said. “You can really see in the decision, that instead of using other articles, they are using one about condemning religion.”
Experts also expressed concern about the motive for the seemingly vindictive two-year prison sentence. The prosecutors had asked for two years’ probation on a lesser charge, which would have spared Purnama prison time.
In explaining the sentence, the judges said they determined that the governor “did not feel guilty” about his comments.
“The judges didn’t think Ahok apologised enough,” said Melissa Crouch, a senior law lecturer at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
Purnama apologised publicly months ago for any offence caused, but he has steadfastly denied that he insulted the Koran or committed blasphemy.
Shortly after the verdict was read live on national television, Purnama was driven past throngs of crying supporters outside the courthouse to the maximum security Cipinang Penitentiary, which houses violent criminals.
On Wednesday, he was transferred to a city police detention facility for security reasons, officials said.
His sister, Fifi Lety Indra, told Reuters that the family feared his life was in danger if he remained in prison. “The religious people have been saying in the mosques that his blood is haram [unclean] and that killing him is good,” she said.
Purnama’s legal team is preparing an appeal to the Jakarta High Court to overturn his conviction and ask for temporary release from custody during the appeals process. Under Indonesia’s procedural code, he was not eligible to remain free during his appeal because he had faced a possible sentence of five years or more, according to legal experts.
His campaign for governor and his simultaneous court hearings seem to have divided the country, leading to strained friendships, screaming around dinner tables and personal insults on social media. Comments from analysts and editorials in the local news largely supported Purnama and raised concerns about the future of Indonesia’s constitutionally enshrined pluralism. So did the candlelight vigils in Jakarta and other cities on Wednesday night.
But that division is another potentially disturbing result of the case, analysts said. Religious and ethnic tensions have been high for months during the campaign and trial.