Cenderawasih Pos, 28 October 2008
Abridged in translation, TAPOL

The chairman of the committee in Jayapura for International Parliamentarians for West Papua, Buchtar Tabuni, the chairmman of Dewan Adat Papua, (DAP) Forkosus Yoiboisembut and DAP secretary general Leonard Imbiri have responded to summons for interrogation by the police, assisted by lawyers from ALDP, Latifah Anum Siregar, Iwan Niode, Faizal and Hulda Buara.

[This relates to a meeting at the House of Commons in London on 15 October to announce the launch of an organisation called International Parliamentarians for West Papua, chaired by Andrew Smith, MP]

Buchtar is being interrogated on suspicion of subversion for his participation in a demonstration in Jayapura on 16 October, while Forkosus is being questioned as a witness. In addition, the latter is
being questioned as a witness in connection with the event in Wamena on 9 August 2008, during which the Morning Star was unfurled and which culminated in the death of Opinus Tabuni.

The 16 October interrogation was based on Articles 106, 107 and 110 of the Criminal Code regarding subversion, as well as Article 212 of the Crimnal Code related to obstructing state officials in the performance of their duties.

The lawyer Iwan Niode said he was puzzled that the Wamena incident was being brought up again because investigations into this case had already been completed, while Forkosus had been questioned three times regarding the case.

Asked by journalists why the issue of subversion had now come up, Niode said he could not understand: the demo had been peaceful, no-one took any actions against the police or displayed any prohibited symbols. ‘Nothing happened that could be described as an act of subversion,’ he said.

As for the 9 August case, he said his client would want to inquire about police investigations into the killing on that day. ‘It is not good enough for the police to say that the bullet did not come from them. The incident must be thoroughly investigated. If the bullet was not fired by the police, then who was it fired by? The only people present on that occasion who were bearing arms were the police and the army. It is not enough for the police to be questioning people as witnesses.’

And as for the demonstration on 16 October, ‘was it because they were calling for a review of the Act of Free Choice? The demo was quite lawful. (The three day-in-advance notification had been complied with.) The law permits demonstrations to take place as long as they do become anarchistic. In such a case, the role of the polce is to safeguard the event and if necessary disband it. So where does subversion come into it?’

He said this meeting was about an event that took place in the British Parliament and there had been a strong reaction from Jakarta about that meeting which seems to have made them paranoid.’

He also said that the response of the security forces to the demonstration on 16 October had been heavy-handed and excessive.’