Adhesive Nusantara: Light Sentence for Defendant in Burning Ahmadiyah House and Mosque, Does Not Have a Deterrent Effect


Current –Bureaucracy & Government,National,Events,Recent

JAKARTA – The panel of judges at the Pontianak District Court (PN), West Kalimantan, Thursday (13/01/2022) has handed down a verdict against a defendant in the case of the destruction of the Miftahul Mosque. Where this place of worship was built by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Balai Harapan Village, Tempuak District, Sintang Regency, West Kalimantan Province with a very light sentence.

Previously, Thursday (06/01/2022), the Pontianak District Court of Justice had read the first verdict to 22 defendants. Which uses the indictment article violates article 160 of the Criminal Code for 3 defendants regarding the crime of inciting. Meanwhile, 19 other defendants were convicted of violating Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, namely committing violence together against people or goods.

The judge’s verdict received attention and criticism from legal observer Petrus Selestinus, Coordinator of the Nusantara Advocates Movement (Perekat Nusantara), Monday (17/01/2022) in Jakarta.

Petrus said, it was very surprising from the legal process on criminal events which were dominated by acts of violence on the basis of SARA. This includes disrupting the position of the state as a guarantor of independence for each resident to embrace and worship according to their respective religions and beliefs.

“They (red-defendants) were only subject to ordinary criminal articles, namely article 160 and article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code with a light sentence of only 4 months and 15 days in prison. This is far from the sense of community justice and does not provide any deterrent effect for the perpetrators ‘ critiqued Peter.

In fact, he said, as a judicial institution based on the 1945 Constitution, police investigators, public prosecutors and judges should have constructed the case for the destruction of the Miftahul Huda Mosque and the burning of houses of the Ahmadiyah Muslim Community in Balai Harapan Village, Tempuak District, Sintang Regency. . Where must be assessed as a criminal event or crime of SARA (Ethnicity, Religion, Race and Inter-Group)

“The legal basis is in the provisions of Law No. 40 of 2008, concerning the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, Law no. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights and Article 82A jo. Article 59 paragraph (3) of Law no. 16 of 2017 concerning Ormas in addition to article 160 and article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. So several mass organizations have actually taken actions that are within the authority of law enforcement officers in crimes that qualify as racial crimes,” he explained.

According to Petrus, the process of investigation and prosecution, which are compromising and even conspiratorial, has undermined the authority of the law, state sovereignty and the principle of the rule of law. Because he said, in criminal cases or SARA crimes, they construct them into ordinary criminal events by applying articles of suspicion and charges of violating Article 160 and Article 170 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code in order to ignore SARA and human rights crimes.

“This is clearly a conspiracy model in law enforcement by applying articles that have no correlation with the substance of criminal events. Whereas what happened was that there was an act of hostility by a group of people or mass organizations against a group of other people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, race or class in a brutal and arbitrary manner by taking over the authority of law enforcement,” said Petrus.


Petrus also explained that the actions of a group of people (Ormas) who damaged buildings, threatened the safety of human life. It even legally negates the right to freedom of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in carrying out their religious worship and beliefs.

“They should have been faced with the threat of serious punishment, as referred to in Article 82A of Law No. 16 of 2017 concerning Ormas, in the form of a maximum imprisonment of 20 (twenty) years, Law No. 39, 1999 concerning Human Rights and Law No. 40 Year 2008 concerning the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination,” he explained.

In this case, law enforcement officers seem allergic and confused when dealing with SARA cases. So that in law enforcement it seems to give fresh air to the group of perpetrators, in the form of applying ordinary criminal articles. Where he was prosecuted and sentenced to a light sentence, ignoring the articles of violation of the Law on the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, the Human Rights Law, the Ormas Law and the Blasphemy Law.

“Light sentences for cases of violence against a group of people in the name of religion against community groups with different religious beliefs (minorities) or cases of blasphemy against religious minorities, with light prison sentences in the case of the Defendant Yahya Waloni and the case of the Sintang Ahmadiyah Mosque. This shows how the state has not been fair and wise towards minority religious groups,” he explained.


According to Petrus, the state is in a position to deny its commitment, where the new state can guarantee the freedom of its citizens to embrace their religion and belief. However, the state has not been able to guarantee the freedom to practice worship according to one’s religion and beliefs, such as crimes of persecution, intolerance and vigilante actions that continue to occur against minority religious groups.

“In fact, the constitutionality of guaranteeing the freedom to embrace religion and belief is equivalent to the guarantee of freedom to worship one’s religion and belief. There is no point if the state only guarantees its citizens to be free to embrace religion and belief, but the state neglects to guarantee freedom for its citizens to worship according to their religion and belief,” he explained at length.

He said, Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution, paragraph (2) states that: The state guarantees the independence of each resident to embrace their own religion and to worship according to their religion and beliefs.

“The sentencing that is far from the public’s sense of justice, especially the victims in the SARA case, is a bad sign where a number of apparatus within the Judiciary (Police Investigators, Public Prosecutors and Judges) are suspected of having been exposed to intolerant and radical ideologies,” he regretted.

Finally, he said, the indicator was the judges’ partial and tolerant attitude towards the perpetrators of SARA, Intolerance and Vigilante crimes during the legal process.

“The evidence is the light verdict for the perpetrators of the SARA Crime in Sintang and the Crime of Hate Speech against the defendant Yahya Waloni who was only sentenced to five months in prison,” he concluded.

Author: RB. Syafrudin Budiman SIP


Leave a Reply