Jakarta – The Attorney General's Office went too far when it named JakTV News Director Tian Bahtiar a suspect in the obstruction of an investigation. The AGO's interpretation of obstruction of justice is a danger to freedom of opinion and expression.

The AGO claims that Tian took money to influence reporters to spread public opinions, putting the AGO in a difficult position in regard to the investigation of three corruption cases: tin trading, sugar imports, and crude palm oil exports. Together with two attorneys, Tian has also been linked with the funding of seminars and demonstrations criticizing the legal process.

The AGO has accused Tian of being in breach of Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law, despite this article being about an individual who intentionally obstructs, hampers, or causes the failure of an investigation, prosecution, or examination in court in a corruption case. It has nothing to do with influencing public opinion.

Using Article 21 to charge Tian is not only reckless but also arbitrary. This article requires that there have been real measures that directly disrupt the legal process – such as destroying evidence, hiding witnesses, or falsifying documentation. The perpetrator's motive must be explained, for example, a desire to escape prosecution or to obtain a more lenient punishment.

The influencing of public opinion through the media, comments on social media, or demonstrations in front of a court building can clearly not be called efforts to obstruct the legal process. They are all covered by freedom of expression, which is protected by the constitution.

The influencing of public opinion that Tian was trying to do is part of public relations work, not a crime obstructing the legal process. If it equates influencing opinion with obstructing an investigation, the AGO is clearly violating the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by the law.

If Tian really did disguise paid information as news, this is a violation of the journalism code of ethics. But this type of violation should be dealt with through the ethics mechanism as laid down in the Press Law, not through criminal prosecution. It is the Press Council – not the AGO – that has the authority to deal with ethical violations by journalists.

And the AGO should not respond to critical public opinion by repressive measures disguised as law enforcement. If public opinion is moving in a direction different from their expectation, the AGO should respond with factual explanations and reasoned arguments – not with a distorted interpretation of the law.

Turning influencing opinion into obstruction of justice is a form of criminalization. It represents a misuse of authority to silence criticism and to reduce the freedom of expression in public places. Behind the actions of the AGO, there is an implied threatening message: anybody who expresses criticism of law enforcement authorities could be prosecuted and jailed.

Therefore, the AGO should revoke the status of suspect on Tian Bahtiar and halt the investigation into the alleged obstruction of the legal process. The AGO should not set a bad precedent for the future of freedom of opinion and expression in this nation.

– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine

Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2004250/overzealously-interpretating-obstructing-an-investigatio