Margot Cohen, Jakarta – The judge hunched forward eagerly as details of a bank statement were read aloud in open court. "What is the total amount of overseas aid?" he prodded the witness.

The bank account in question bore the name of Muchtar Pakpahan, the beleaguered Indonesian labour leader who stands accused of subversion in south Jakarta district court. And the witness, a Jakarta branch manager for the Amsterdam-based ABN Amro Bank, obligingly recited the amounts deposited in the account in 1995 and 1996 by trade unions and aid organizations in the Netherlands, Finland, Germany and the United States.

The February 3 testimony has provoked the latest burst of outrage in a trial targeting Pakpahan's speeches, writings and songs. Critics regard the trial as a witch-hunt aimed at crippling Indonesia's independent labour movement. While bank records often serve as evidence in corruption and embezzlement trials, this is the first time that the state has pressed for such financial disclosure in a political case. "This is a very bad precedent," says Mulya Lubis, chairman of the Centre for Human Rights Studies in Jakarta. "This can hamper the effectiveness of non governmental organizations."

Such disclosures also run the risk of eroding confidence in financial institutions. The Netherlands Trade Union Confederation, known as the FNV Holland's biggest union and one of Pakpahan's strongest supporters has turned up the heat on ABN Amro in letters and newspaper editorials. "We have very strong doubts that they were forced to provide the information by law," says FNV International Secretary Tom Etty. "Because they knew very well the character of the case and the dangers to Muchtar Pakpahan, they should have been very careful."

For its part, ABN Amro maintains that it had to comply with Indonesian banking laws, which authorize police and prosecutors to obtain bank records with written permission from the Indonesian Finance Ministry. The matter was discussed at the highest levels of bank management in Amsterdam. "We handled this carefully and we will always do as much as we can to limit the amount of information transferred to third parties," says ABN Amro spokesman Tanno Massar. "The confidentiality of customer information is one of the most important things in our organization."

Ironically, Pakpahan had switched his account to the Dutch bank after overseas contributions sent through an American bank mysteriously vanished in 1995. That account was listed under the name of Pakpahan's organization, the Indonesian Workers' Welfare Union, which has not been legally recognized by President Suharto's government. Lubis believes that the burden lies with the Finance Ministry to clarify the reasons for granting the prosecution's unorthodox request. But no answers are forthcoming from Indomen Saragih, the ministry's director of banking and financial services, other than that the permit complied with the law.

For some Indonesian activists, the startling public exposure of Pakpahan's bank account stirred memories of the telephone records revealed during the 1995 trial of Ahmad Taufik and Eko Maryadi, local journalists who are now serving three year jail terms for producing an unlicensed publication critical of the government. In that case, prosecutors obtained a computer printout of phone numbers and messages from a private paging service, which had promised to respect customer confidentiality.

Pakpahan's lawyers have made no secret of their dislike for Djazuli P. Sudibyo, the presiding member of the three judge panel hearing the case. On January 29 the lawyers petitioned to have Sudibyo removed, citing a number of irregularities since the trial began last December. For starters, Sudibyo has barred defence lawyers from posing direct questions. Instead, the judges rephrase the questions and address them to the witnesses. "Many of our questions have been twisted in a way that prevents us from developing our case," grouses defence lawyer Bambang Widjojanto.

The defence team also deplores the court's treatment of witnesses. For example, Sudibyo ordered prosecution witness Berar Fathia to be isolated in a separate room after her testimony contradicted previous statements given to the police. "Think about whether you're going to provide the real explanation... or whether you're going to make up a new story," the petition quotes the judge as saying. On another occasion, the petition quotes Sudibyo as telling Pakpahan: "Once again, if you talk too much I'm going to throw you out."

Neither the judges nor the Justice Department has responded formally to the petition. But during the subsequent court session on February 3, Sudibyo appeared slightly subdued. He did warn observers repeatedly not to cross their legs in court a posture deemed disrespectful. He also banished Pakpahan's teenage daughter from the courtroom on the grounds that she was underage although she had attended a previous session. And he insisted on having every ABN Amro transaction read into the record. Otherwise, he let the other two judges take the lead.

Observers contrast the histrionics in the Pakpahan case to the relatively smooth pace of the other subversion cases taking centre stage the prosecution of Budiman Sudjatmiko and 13 fellow adherents of the Democratic People's Party, a dissident group known as PRD that sought to recruit workers and students.

During the February 8 session of Budiman's trial, the prosecution produced a PRD letter requesting funds from Pakpahan's union. However, the subsequent testimony revealed more about secretarial inefficiency than any international conspiracy to bankroll subversive activity in Indonesia. "Was the letter answered?" the prosecutor, Mohammad Salim, asked a member of Pakpahan's union, Rekson Silaban. "No," came the reply.

Salim dismisses suggestions from defence lawyers that none of the 25 odd witnesses so far has provided evidence supporting the subversion charges. Most of the testimony has focused on legal activities such as protests before parliament and factory owners. "We will prove our case," he told the REVIEW.

One witness who has refused to appear is Bambang Widjojanto, director of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, which provides legal support to the PRD defendants. If Bambang fails to testify in Budiman's case, he faces a possible five-year jail sentence. Bambang was also called to testify in Pakpahan's case, but declined on the grounds that he serves as the union chairman's lawyer.

Pakpahan's allies in the international trade-union movement are taking their case outside the courtroom. In early February workers from 17 unions demonstrated outside Indonesia's embassy in Washington. Further protests are planned at the New York and Los Angeles consulates. And thanks to some concerted lobbying, it looks like Pakpahan has become a Friend of Bill. "I share your sense of outrage over Indonesia's decision to reinstate Mr. Pakpahan's prior conviction and to bring new charges of subversion against him," President Bill Clinton wrote to an AFL CIO union leader on December 30. "I also share your concern that Indonesia's actions in this case demonstrate a pattern of disrespect for fundamental freedoms."

Of course, that might not mean much more than tea and sympathy. Clinton ended the letter with a reminder of America's "broader national security concerns" in maintaining ties with Indonesia.