The director of the Bali Legal Aid Foundation (LBH), Ni Kadek Vany Primaliraning, has been reported to the Bali regional police for treason for allegedly facilitating a mass action by Papuan activists, reports CNN Indonesia.

The report was confirmed by Vany when contacted by CNN Indonesia.

Vany sent CNN Indonesia a photograph of the official receipt of the public complaint, which was registered with the Bali regional police and dated Monday, August 2, via a message application.

Vany has yet to explain in detail about the report but she suspects that it was related to legal assistance that they gave to Papuan activists conducting a protest.

“Assistance for Papua comrades holding a protest action,” said Vany via an SMS message.

The receipt of the reports shows that it is a public complaint registered as Bali regional police report Number Dumas/539/VIII/2021/SPKT.

In the document it states that the person submitting the report is Rico Ardika Panjaitan SH, who is an assistant advocate residing in Datuk Bandar Timor sub-district in North Sumatra. The person being reported is Ni Kadek Vany Primaliraning as the director of LBH Bali.

Alleged makar
The brief description of the report concerns an act of alleged makar (treason, subversion, rebellion) and conspiracy to commit makar. The report cites the victim in the case as being the “Constitution of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia” (NKRI).

Vany then explained about the action by activists from the Bali Papua Social Concern Front (FORMALIPA) Bali which resulted in her being reported to the Balinese police.

“The comrades asked for legal aid (assistance) related to a freedom of expression action. On the day of the action the comrades coordinated with us to leave their motorcycles at the LBH for safekeeping then marched to the Bali regional police to hold the action,” she said.

During the march, however, there was an ormas (mass or social organisation) which blocked and assaulted the protesters. As a result they sought refuge on the grounds of the LBH Bali.

“Those assisting the action (LBH Bali) coordinated with police to protect the protesters, bearing in mind that the comrades had already sent a notification [of the action to police]. And, the action was an action to convey an opinion in public, even though the police still asked them to disband,” said Vany.

“After a protracted debate, in the end the comrades were allowed to convey their views in front of the LBH Bali,” she said.

In response to the report against Vany, which is suspected to be related to her providing legal assistance, Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) chairperson Asfinawati that it would be inappropriate for police to pursue the report.

‘This is fabricated’
“The LBH Bali was acting in accordance with its capacity. This is fabricated, if it’s followed up then the police will be endangering all lawyers or people at LBH,” she said when contacted.

Asfinawati – known as Asfin by her friends – emphasised that the LBH’s activities are in accordance with legislation as regulated under Law Number 16/2011 on Legal Aid.

When contacted separately, Rico Ardika Panjaitan, who submitted the police report, claimed that he had reported Vany over a mass action by Papuan activists on May 31.

At the time, he said, the Papuan demonstrators gave speeches in front of the LBH offices, one of which contained the statement, “That the red-and-white [national flag] is not Papua, Papua is the Morning Star [flag]”.

It was this that made him report the LBH Bali for allegedly violating Article 106 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

“According to my understanding, in legal terms, under Article 106 of the KUHP it is written, right, or it means one thing, meaning that when a part of the Indonesian territory wants to be given independence this is included in the category of makar.

“This means that in the case of the AMP [Papua Student Alliance] it fulfilled [the stipulations of] that article, right?” he said when contacted.

LBH Bali accused
In the case of LBH Bali, meanwhile, he is accusing them of facilitating the Papuan mass action and therefore violating Article 110 of the KUHP.

“They (LBH) can be indicted under Article 110”, said Panjaitan, who claimed to have made the report in an individual capacity although he received support from the group Patriot Garuda Nusantara of which he is a member.

CNN Indonesia has attempted to confirm the report with Balinese regional police public relations division chief Senior Commissioner Syamsi but at the time of publication had not received a response.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Direktur LBH Bali Dipolisikan Dugaan Makar Bantu Massa Papua”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

BRIEFING: By Erin Harris

The decision to terminate a long-standing arrangement that saw the Australian High Court act as a partial appellate court for Nauru, as reported last week, has heightened concerns about Nauru’s appropriateness as a venue for an Australian immigration detention centre.

The timing of the decision – 90 days’ notice of the termination was quietly given to the Australian Government on 13 December – appears to have been designed to block the avenue of appeal for 19 citizens (several former Nauruan MPs among them) charged over a 2015 protest outside the Parliament of Nauru.

However, it has also served to further erode the rights of hundreds of asylum seekers, including dozens of children, currently in Nauru.

The cancelled court arrangement had been in place since 1976, yet determined only 16 cases in total. Thirteen of those cases were heard in 2017, with 11 brought by asylum seekers disputing the refusal of refugee status.

Of those 11 cases, only one was dismissed. Eight were successful, and two were dropped due to refugee status being granted in the interim.

Nauru has declared it will set up its own court of appeal, but in the meantime asylum seekers are denied the basic legal right of appeal.

-Partners-

In response to the termination becoming public, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop declared:

Australia supports Nauru’s sovereignty and its December 2017 decision to terminate the treaty in advance of the nation’s 50th anniversary of independence.

Secretive nature
Australia is right to support Nauru’s assertion of sovereignty, and the removal of this somewhat awkward arrangement – an oddity the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended terminating in 2001.

But Australia also needs to question the secretive nature of the announcement, its politically motivated timing, and the fact that the termination took effect before an alternative appeals court could be established.

Several legal rulings and a Senate inquiry have determined that Australia has a duty of care in relation to the asylum seekers in our facilities, regardless of their location, and this development indicates a further blow to the rights of an already vulnerable population.

This shutdown of a legal avenue of appeal is not the only reason to question the ongoing appropriateness of Nauru as a site for Australia’s immigration detention centre.

In the past few months, a steady stream of cases have demonstrated Nauru’s lack of capacity to deal with the mounting number of health issues among asylum seekers held on the island.

Despite Australia’s claim that “healthcare in Nauru is the responsibility of the government of Nauru”, in reality, Nauru is unable to meet asylum seekers’ needs.

The Australian government’s own health contractor on the island has declared the hospital in Nauru to be unsafe for surgery, and Nauru has no permanent specialist child psychiatrists.

Suicide risk
In 2018 alone, there have been two cases (here and here) of juveniles at acute risk of suicide on Nauru being ordered by Australian courts to be transferred to Australia for treatment.

Taiwan has also been used as an alternative venue for surgical treatment not available in Nauru. Because Taiwan is not a UN member state, and therefore not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugees transferred there cannot claim protection on their arrival.

A consideration of Australia’s duty of care in relation to the asylum seekers housed on Nauru begs the question of why Australia continues to doggedly prioritise the US resettlement deal to the exclusion of all other options?

This is particularly pertinent in light of President Donald Trump’s recent escalation of negativity towards immigrants and refugees, and the slow pace at which the US deal is unfolding.

UNHCR Director of the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific in Geneva, Indrika Ratwatte, recently urged the Australian government to reconsider the offer by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made in November, and reaffirmed this week.

By doing so, Australia could quickly bring an end to the suffering of many of the detainees who remain on Nauru.

Ultimately, Australia needs to recognise that the asylum seekers on Nauru are its responsibility, and that Nauru’s declining ability to provide them with adequate care and basic rights is a problem that must be solved.

Erin Harris is a research associate at the Lowy Institute, where she works with both the Diplomacy and Public Opinion Programme and the Digital Program. Her research interests include gender, development and the Pacific. This article originally appeared on The Interpreter, published by the Lowy Institute and is republished with the permission of the author.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz