Category Archives: human rights

Coalition Suspects Yasinta Moiwend Controversy Is Linked to Ongoing Court Proceedings

Posted on by
Reply

Jayapura, Jubi – The Papua Coalition for Law Enforcement and Human Rights has suggested that Yasinta Moiwend’s recent objections to her inclusion in the documentary film Pig Feast: Colonialism in Our Time may be connected to an ongoing legal case before the Jayapura Administrative Court (PTUN).

Previously, five representatives of the Malind Indigenous community, including Yasinta Moiwend, filed a lawsuit challenging Merauke Regent Decree No. 100.3.3.2/1105/2025.
The decree concerns the environmental feasibility approval for the construction of a 135-kilometer access road as part of a food security project initiated by Indonesia’s Ministry of Defense.

The case was registered with the Jayapura Administrative Court under Case Number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN Jayapura on March 5, 2026.

The Papua Coalition for Law Enforcement and Human Rights, which is part of the legal team assisting the plaintiffs, stated that lawyers serving on the Merauke Solidarity Advocacy Team, acting as legal counsel for Yasinta Moiwend, cannot be subjected to criminal or civil liability for carrying out their professional duties.

“Yasinta Moiwend is a client of the Merauke Solidarity Advocacy Team, which is currently representing her in proceedings before the Jayapura Administrative Court,” the coalition said in a written press release issued on Wednesday (June 3, 2026).

According to the coalition, the advocacy team has been assisting Moiwend and four other Indigenous representatives in their lawsuit against the Regent of Merauke.

During the proceedings, Indonesia’s Minister of Defense entered the case as an intervening defendant. This was marked by the submission of the intervening defendant’s response to the panel of judges overseeing Case Number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN JPR, which was filed on May 18, 2026.

The Ministry of Defense’s involvement came after the Merauke Solidarity Advocacy Team and the legal team representing the Merauke Regent had reached the rejoinder stage of proceedings.

The coalition stated that while the advocacy team was preparing its response to the Ministry of Defense’s submission, the public was surprised by the circulation of a video in which Yasinta Moiwend questioned the use of footage featuring her in the documentary Pig Feast: Colonialism in Our Time.

In the same video, Moiwend also stated that she would not travel to Jayapura to attend court hearings in the case.

“Taken together, these developments indicate that those who recorded and disseminated the video were clearly targeting the legal proceedings currently underway at the Jayapura Administrative Court,” the coalition stated.

The coalition further argued that because one of the statements in the video directly referred to the PTUN proceedings, the individuals who recorded and publicized the video had violated professional ethics by failing to coordinate with the Merauke Solidarity Advocacy Team, which remains Yasinta Moiwend’s legal representative.

“What is even more unusual is that, without any revocation of the power of attorney, the Director of LBH Papua Merauke was later reported to the Metro Jaya Police. In fact, the Merauke Solidarity Advocacy Team continues to hold legal authority as Yasinta Moiwend’s counsel in Case Number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN JPR,” the coalition wrote.

The coalition argued that the police report against one of the leaders of an advocacy institution that is part of the Merauke Solidarity Advocacy Team contradicts Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, which provides that advocates cannot be prosecuted civilly or criminally while carrying out their professional duties in good faith on behalf of their clients in court proceedings.

Based on that provision, the coalition stated that allegations made by Yasinta Moiwend against a member of the advocacy team, as well as actions taken by lawyers assisting her in filing reports with police authorities, should be reviewed by Indonesia’s advocate organizations in accordance with professional ethics procedures outlined in Article 8 of the Advocates Law.

The coalition also invoked Article 100 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights in calling on the Papua representative office of Indonesia’s Judicial Commission to monitor the professionalism of the panel of judges handling Case Number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN JPR.

The coalition urged the panel of judges at the Jayapura Administrative Court to conduct the proceedings professionally and impartially. It also reminded the Regent of Merauke and Indonesia’s Minister of Defense, who are defendants in the case, not to use the Yasinta Moiwend controversy to influence or gain an advantage in the ongoing legal proceedings.

In addition, the coalition called on the National Police Chief to instruct the Metro Jaya Regional Police to observe legal protections afforded to advocates and legal aid providers under Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates and Article 11 of Law No. 16 of 2011 on Legal Aid in relation to the Yasinta Moiwend case.

The coalition further urged the Honorary Council of Indonesia’s advocate organizations to immediately investigate alleged violations of the legal profession’s code of ethics related to the case.

The Papua Coalition for Law Enforcement and Human Rights, which provides legal assistance to the Malind Indigenous community, includes LBH Papua, PAHAM Papua, ALDP, KPKC Synod of the Land of Papua, JPIC OFM Papua, Elsham Papua, Yadupa, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, LBH Papua Merauke, LBH Papua Sorong Office, KontraS Papua, and Tong Pu Ruang Aman. (*)

Nuevaterra Mambor 

‘Pig Feast’: a test case for alternative media, Papua, and Indonesian democracy 

Posted on by
Reply

BY HELLENA SOUISA

11 JUNE 2026 

This may be the most controversial film in Indonesia right now.

After being screened offline at nearly 2,000 locations across Indonesia and abroad, the documentary Pig Feast: Colonialism in Our Time (Pesta Babi: Kolonialisme di Zaman Kita) was officially released online on May 22.

Within just 14 days of release, Pig Feast had already been viewed more than 13 million times on the YouTube channel JubiTV.

Jubi is a West Papua-based media outlet and one of the documentary’s production collaborators, alongside Greenpeace Indonesia, Watchdoc, Koperasi Indonesia Baru, Pusaka Bentala Rakyat, and LBH Papua Merauke.

The title Pig Feast (Pesta Babi) is taken from a tradition of the Muyu people in West Papua known as Awon Atatbon. This is a customary ritual involving pigs as social and cultural symbols used to mark the continuity and preservation of Papua’s forests and natural environment.

The 90-minute film, directed by Dandhy Dwi Laksono and Cypri Jehan Paju Dale, is set in South Papua. It follows Indigenous communities resisting the loss of their land and livelihoods due to a government-backed National Strategic Project (Proyek Strategis Nasional, or PSN).

The documentary argues that Indonesia’s food estate project is merely a cover for a large-scale bioethanol venture benefiting particular groups, while exposing the broader web of political and economic interests behind it, including alleged military involvement.

Filling the information drought on Papua

There are several reasons that may explain the widespread public enthusiasm for independently organised community screenings and discussions of Pig Feast at thousands of locations across Indonesia and abroad, as well as its millions of YouTube views.

First and foremost is the information and content the film offers about what is happening in Papua. It describes it as the world’s largest ongoing deforestation project carried out in the name of a PSN, the clearing of 2.5 million hectares of tropical rainforest, and the displacement of 107,000 people, all taking place amid continuing armed conflict in the region.

Second, it is no secret that the ownership structure of Indonesia’s mainstream media, particularly broadcast media, which is controlled by a small group of conglomerates, has affected the diversity of its content.

Because of this ownership structure and the entanglement of political and economic interests behind it, the content of Indonesia’s mainstream television media, as I have previously written, tends to be uniform, elite-centric, Jakarta-centric, Java-centric, and urban-centric.

As a result, there is little or no space for the voices of marginalised groups, communities outside Java, or critical issues that do not generate significant advertising revenue, such as environmental conservation, human rights abuses, and attacks on environmental defenders.

This means that information from and about Papua is rarely seen on mainstream national broadcast media screens. Meanwhile, in the digital sphere, we also know there have previously been attempts to shut down internet access in Papua.

Against this backdrop, Pig Feast, which offers in-depth and comprehensive information about the issues faced by Papuans, emerges to fill the void and address the drought of crucial information about Papua.

Even in an era when media consumption and distribution patterns are increasingly governed by algorithms, Pig Feast’s grassroots community screening model has managed to overcome the dominance of those algorithms.

It is therefore important to view Pig Feast as a success story for alternative media, which Downing, and Hackett and Carroll, define as media that are ‘progressive, explicitly opposed to particular axes of domination (corporate capitalism, heterosexism, racism, state authoritarianism) and openly assume a stance of advocacy rather than pseudo-objectivity, experiment with new aesthetic styles, and address issues marginalised in hegemonic media.’

Pig Feast, like most of Laksono’s documentaries, rarely includes interviews with authorities.

The aim is to balance narratives in the public sphere by giving a platform to communities whose voices are nearly absent from mainstream media.

By doing so, the filmmaker rejects the notion of giving equal voice to those who perpetuate injustice, and critiques the idea of journalistic ‘objectivity,’ which is often seen as serving entrenched commercial or political interests that maintain relations of domination.

This is both a reminder and a reaffirmation of the role and principles of alternative media.

Screenings disrupted, branded ‘foreign agents,’ and reported to police

Because of the issues raised in Pig Feast, including the names and institutions mentioned in the film, the documentary has been met with intense backlash.

Ekspedisi Indonesia Baru, one of the documentary’s production collaborators, reported that of more than 2,000 screenings held so far, at least 50 had been dispersed, cancelled, or subjected to intimidation.

The reasons varied, ranging from claims that the ‘title is provocative,’ and the need to ‘maintain public order’ and ‘anticipate security concerns,’ to allegations of ‘failure to coordinate permits.’

Some screenings were also accused of ‘not possessing a Film Censorship Pass Certificate (STLS) from the Indonesian Film Censorship Board,’ even though Pig Feast, as a film with a ‘non-commercial purpose’, falls into an exempt category.

Off-screen, director Dandhy Laksono has also become the target of black campaigns on social media, where he has been labelled a ‘foreign agent’ and ‘provocateur’.

Most recently, Laksono and LBH Papua Merauke director John Teddy Wakum were reported to the Jakarta Metropolitan Police by one of the figures featured in the documentary, Yasinta Moiwend.

Before filing the report, Moiwend, who in Pig Feast firmly rejected the PSN and criticised the government, later appeared to reverse her stance and express support for the project through social media posts.

Moiwend said she objected to her face being shown in the documentary and subsequently, while also demanding that screenings of the film be stopped.

However, members of Moiwend’s family viewed her sudden change of attitude and police report as suspicious, suspecting that she acted under pressure and intimidation from certain parties.

A new chapter for Pig Feast: a test for Papua, alternative media, and democracy

Efforts to drag the film’s director and one of its collaborators into legal proceedings, following waves of intimidation, repression, screening dispersals, disinformation, and accusations of being ‘foreign agents’, amount to a test on three fronts at once.

First, this is a test for future information and reporting about Papua. What Pig Feast is experiencing recalls the case of Indonesian human rights defenders Fatia Maulidyanti and Haris Azhar in 2023 and 2024.

Both were charged after being reported for defamation by then Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment Luhut Binsar Panjaitan over a video in which Azhar and Maulidyanti discussed research by nine civil society organisations alleging Panjaitan’s involvement in mining businesses and military operations in Papua.

Although the court eventually acquitted Azhar and Maulidyanti, the recurring pattern of criminalising the messengers of Papua-related information, while leaving the substance of the information itself untouched, represents an attempt to obscure problems in Papua that deserve national attention.

Second, this is also a test for future collaborative work between alternative media and civil society. What Laksono and Wakum are experiencing, like Azhar and Maulidyanti, creates a chilling effect not only for those who amplify marginalised voices, but also for the marginalised voices themselves and for issues neglected by mainstream media, particularly civil society perspectives confronting elite dominance.

Third, this new chapter in the story of Pig Feast is ultimately also a test for democracy itself. Can Indonesia be a democracy where freedom of expression and opinion are guaranteed, and where diversity of information, sustained in part by alternative media, remains a crucial pillar of its society?

An acid test of Indonesia’s democracy 

Posted on by
Reply

May 10, 2026

A military police person, far left, escorts Indonesian military personnel, from left, Sami Lakka, Nandala Dwi Prasetya, Budhi Hariyanto Widhi Cahyono, and Edi Sudarko, accused of an acid attack on human right activist Andrie Yunus, during trial at a military court in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, April 29, 2026. (AP Photo/Tatan Syuflana)

An acid attack by four Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) soldiers on a human rights activist highlights growing tensions as President Prabowo reinstates military influence in Indonesia’s civilian administration.  

Is Indonesia using state-sanctioned violence to crush critics of its administration of the world’s third-largest democracy? Since a revolution at the end of the last century, it claims to have thrown off a 32-year autocracy led by former general Soeharto. But the replacement government, now run by Soeharto’s former son-in-law, Prabowo Subianto, is a “flawed democracy” according to the London-based Economic Intelligence Unit.

Arousing most concern are laws to put the military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia, TNI) in control of systems and departments previously run by civilians. NGOs have been leading critics of this trend, with one prominent human rights advocate, Andrie Yunus, assaulted in  an acid attack on 12 March 2026 as he left his Central Jakarta office around 11 pm. Yunus is the Deputy Coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) and has been an outspoken critic of the return to a military-run state. He had been receiving phone threats but  had still been planning to release research into violence perpetrated by the security forces.

Amnesty International Indonesia collected 295 incidents of intimidation against human rights defenders and labelled 2025 as the Year of Living Dangerously for activists. (The title of the 1978 Christopher Koch book and Peter Weir’s 1982 film retains its relevance and potency.) Acid is often the weapon of choice. It doesn’t go bang and arouse security or upset body scanners; blokes carrying plastic drink bottles rarely arouse suspicion.

Yunus was critical of the TNI’s growing influence, largely through inserting officers into the leadership of government departments that had been handling civilian affairs for almost three decades, since the collapse of Soeharto’s New Order government. Prabowo is a former three-star general sacked in 1998 for allegedly disobeying orders while he was Commander of the Army Strategic Reserve Command_._ Now as President, he has even put TNI officers in charge of the government’s free-school meal program and its rice control and distribution agency_._

Yunus’s ambushers were four active-duty intelligence officers, who are on trial in a military court, where it is alleged they were motivated by personal revenge to splash his face and clothes with acid. Another version blames Yunus for causing distress in 2025 when he disrupted a hotel meeting of politicians and bureaucrats discussing the revision of the TNI Law. The defendants consider Yunus’s actions had insulted the military.

Researchers for Yunus’s defence have scrutinised security camera tapes of the incident and claim another 10 soldiers were involved as watchouts, making the attack a coordinated affair. A flask of the prepared acid mix was tossed in Yunus’s face, under his helmet and down his overclothes. He was thrown off his machine, screaming in agony, according to witnesses.  Twenty per cent of his body is burnt and he will likely lose his right eye. He is still in hospital.

Prabowo has reportedly said: “This is terrorism, isn’t it? A barbaric act. We must pursue.”  But KontraS is unimpressed by the pledge and angry about the prosecution being held in a military court, even if the proceedings are open to the media.

Yunus has written to the President:

In various cases involving civilians harmed by military personnel, including forced disappearances, killings, torture, and domestic violence, military courts have never delivered justice, accountability, or full institutional responsibility up to the chain of command. This only perpetuates a record of impunity.

This appeal was binned.

Jakarta Military Court chief Colonel Fredy Ferdian Isnartanto has tried to justify keeping the case in his jurisdiction.  He told a press conference:

If this were handled in a civilian court, it would not be appropriate, and the legal process would not proceed. It could even be rejected by the district court.

The track record on prosecutions is not good. Ten years ago, a former policeman turned corruption investigator, Novel Baswedan, was walking home from his local mosque in North Jakarta when two men threw acid at his face. He lost an eye. After more than two years of investigation and a presidential order to find the assailants, the result was a disappointment. Two active police officers were convicted and jailed for a year. Novel’s supporters said they were scapegoats.

The stand-out in the business of removing government critics has to be the 2004 assassination of lawyer Munir Said Thalib, the founder of  KontraS in 1998. He was poisoned on a Garuda flight while heading to Utrecht University to study for a master’s degree in international law and human rights. A post-mortem found arsenic in an orange drink.  He died before landing. The then-President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (another former general) promised Munir’s widow, Suciwati, that the case would be thoroughly investigated.  It wasn’t.

According to the nation’s leading daily, Kompas,

the shadow of the military’s return to dominance in civilian governance is now increasingly apparent. A total of 2,500 active TNI personnel have quietly taken up civilian positions, a figure that exceeds the limits set by law.

If the revision of the TNI Law currently being discussed by the DPR (Parliament) is passed, the last barrier to military involvement in civilian bureaucracy will collapse.

Not only that, but soldiers will also be given the opportunity to engage in business activities, blurring the clear line that has long separated the military from economic and political interests.

The California-based Asia Sentinel magazine has warned of “the darkening face of Indonesia’s democracy” with “reports of intimidation and terror directed at activists, legislative initiatives widely seen as constraining press freedom, and, perhaps most strikingly, the reactivation of military command structures at the regional level”.

How does this affect Australia? Along with the US, in early 2000s, Australia banned Prabowo from visiting on the grounds of his alleged human rights record in Papua and Timor. But in politics, pragmatism usually smothers principles. Prabowo got his visa once he founded his right-wing populist Gerindra (Great Indonesia) party in 2008 and became its candidate for the presidency.

Earlier this year, PM Anthony Albanese visited Jakarta to sign a security deal between the TNI and the ADF, saying, “No country is more important to Australia — or to the prosperity, security and stability of the Indo-Pacific than Indonesia”. No mention of human rights, the rules of warfare and the sharing of values.  Our soldiers mingling with theirs should beware of misunderstandings that could lead to criticisms and cool drink bottles with suspect contents.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

Duncan Graham 

Duncan Graham has been a journalist for more than 40 years in print, radio and TV. He is the author of People Next Door (UWA Press). He is now writing for the English language media in Indonesia from within Indonesia. Duncan Graham has an MPhil degree, a Walkley Award, two Human Rights Commission awards and other prizes for his radio, TV and print journalism in Australia. He lives in East Java

Police reportedly shot seven students during civil unrest following graduation parade in Kobakma, Mamberamo Tengah Regency

Posted on by
Reply

6 May 2026 / 4 minutes of reading

On 5 May 2026, police officers opened fire at protesters and injured at least seven civilians with bullets (see photos and victim table below, source: independent HRDs), most of them senior high school students conducting a parade to celebrate their school graduation in Kobakma, Mamberamo Tengah Regency, Papua Pegunungan Province. The situation allegedly escalated after police officers attempted to stop the group over the display of the Morning Star flag. Spray-painting school uniforms with a Morning Star Symbol is a common practice across West Papua on graduation day. In other parts of West Papua such as Yahukimo, Lanny Jaya and Nabire, the student parades took place without being interfered by authorities (see photos below, source: independent HRD)

According to local sources, students had gathered to celebrate the announcement of their graduation results and marched through Kobakma town. When the procession reached the market area near Arege Road and the police station, police officers reportedly blocked the parade around 11:00 am. A verbal confrontation escalated into a scuffle. Residents who witnessed the incident reportedly objected to the police intervention, after which the situation became increasingly chaotic. Protesters began throwing stones at the police officers, who allegedly responded by firing shots and deploying tear gas to disperse the crowd.

Reports also indicate that at least one police officer sustained serious injuries during the unrest. Security personnel reportedly remained deployed at several strategic locations in Kobakma following the incident. The Deputy Regent of Mamberamo Tengah Regency was expected to meet police officials on 6 May 2026 at the Kobakma Police Station to discuss de-escalation and prevent further violence.

The Morning Star is a symbol of cultural identity for indigenous Papuans. Article 2 of the Papuan Special Autonomy Law (UU Otsus) acknowledges the use of a regional emblem as a symbol of cultural identity if the symbol is not used to compromise the sovereignty of Indonesia. However Indonesian authorities continue criminalising the use of the Morning Star on clothing and accessories. The Papuan independence movement promotes the Morning Star Flag as their National Flag.

Human rights analysis

The incident raises serious concerns regarding the necessity, legality and proportionality of the use of force by law enforcement officials. Even if authorities considered the display of the Morning Star flags unlawful under Indonesian law, the use of firearms against students and civilians requires strict scrutiny. Under international human rights standards, firearms may only be used when strictly unavoidable to protect life.

The incident also raises concerns regarding Indonesia’s obligations under the United Nations Human Rights Committee interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a State Party. The reported use of live ammunition against students and civilians during a public procession may constitute an interference with the rights to life, peaceful assembly and freedom of expression protected under Articles 6, 19 and 21 ICCPR. Even where authorities consider symbols such as the Morning Star flag to be politically sensitive or unlawful under domestic legislation, restrictions on expression and assembly must remain lawful, necessary and proportionate. Under Article 6 ICCPR, law enforcement officials have a heightened duty to protect life and must minimise harm during public order operations. The deployment of firearms in response to a student procession appears difficult to reconcile with the principle that lethal or potentially lethal force may only be used as a measure of last resort where strictly necessary to protect life from an imminent threat.

Furthermore, the reported shooting of minors and young civilians may amount to arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if excessive force was used. Indonesia is therefore under an obligation to conduct a prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigation capable of identifying those responsible and ensuring accountability and reparations for the victims.

Table of persons injured by bullets in Kobakma Town on 5 May 2026

NoNameAgeStatus, backgroundAdditional info
1Yali Elabi18Student, Kobakma State High SchoolGunshot wound to right thigh; critical
2Nita Sibak20Female student, Kobakma State High SchoolGunshot wound to left hand
3Sago Pugumis17Male student, from Broges Village, Kobakma DistrictInjured; hospitalised
4Enius Wanimbo22Male student, from KelilaInjured; hospitalised
5Wajus Pagawak24Village youth, from Gimbis Village, Kobakma DistrictInjured; hospitalised
6Abi Yikawa24Civilian, from Dakama Village, Bolakme DistrictInjured; hospitalised
7Nius Wandikbo19Male, from IlukwaInjured; hospitalised

Protesters with gunshot wounds receive medical treatment at the Lukas Enembe Hospital in Mamberamo Tengah Regency, 5 May 2026

Detailed Case Data
Document ID: HRM-CAS-063-2026
Region: Indonesia > Highland Papua > Central Mamberamo > Kobagma
Total number of victims: 7

#Number of VictimsName, DetailsGenderAgeGroup AffiliationViolations
1.1 Nita Sibak

female20 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment
2.1 Yali Elabi

male18 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment
3.1 Sago Pugumis

male17 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment
4.1 Enius Wanimbo

male22 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment
5.1 Wajus Pagawak

male24 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment
6.1 Abi Yikawa

male24 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment
7.1 Nius Wandikbo

19 Indigenous Peoples, Studentill-treatment

Period of incident: 05/05/2026 – 05/05/2026
Perpetrator: Republic Indonesia > Indonesian Security Forces > Indonesian Police > POLRES
Issues: indigenous peoples, security force violence

Indonesian Police Go on Killing Spree, as Crackdown Escalates in West Papua  

Posted on by
Reply

BY PAUL GREGOIRE PUBLISHED ON 11 APR 2026

Members of the occupying Indonesian police went on a murderous rampage in the West Papuan village of Moanemani, located in Dogiyai Regency at around 10 am on 31 March 2026, which involved officers firing randomly into a local marketplace, prior to the police assault shifting to neighbouring Ikebo village, where officers started indiscriminately shooting upon Papuan houses.

The number of people injured is unknown, however, five West Papuans were shot dead. The Indonesian police commenced applying collective punishment to the villagers of Moanemani and Ikebo, after the body of a murdered police officer, who was an Indigenous West Papuan, was found in front of Ebenezer Church in Moanemani. And no one is sure who killed the officer.

This callous attack on villagers comes at a time when Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto has been cracking down on West Papuans within their own Melanesian homelands, particularly in the regencies of Yahukimo, Intan Jaya, Paniai, Maybrat, and now Dogiyai. This marks an escalation of attacks on villages that commenced in Nduga regency in 2018, under the former Jokowi government.

Indonesia commenced administering West Papua in 1963, following the former Netherlands colonisers exiting and the UN brokering a deal, which was to permit the West Papuans to hold a referendum on independence. But in seeking to maintain control of the resource rich region, Indonesia held a 1969 vote where 1,026 Papuans voted to remain with Jakarta at gun point.

The recent random shootings on the part of Indonesian police reveals the circumstances that West Papuans have lived under since the 1960s, and the escalation in violence against the locals is in keeping with a Prabowo presidency, as the former Suharto-era army general earnt himself a reputation for perpetrating war crimes against the East Timorese and West Papuans.

Escalating occupier aggression

Footage of the recent incident supplied by the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), shows armed and heavily uniformed Indonesian police emerging from a police van and chasing unarmed West Papuan civilians deeper into a residential area, shots can be heard and buildings can be seen ablaze in the distance.

Those gunned down and killed, included 19-year-old Siprianus Tibakoto, 20-year-old Yosep You, 60-year-old Ester Pigai, who suffered from paralysis, along with 14-year-old Martinus Yobee and 19-year-old Angkian Edowai. And on 1 April, 14-year-old Maikel Waine and 11-year-old Maikel Pekei continued to be in a critical condition, after being shot by Indonesian police.

“Indonesia’s actions in Dogiyai are both a crime against humanity – a grave act of colonial violence – and a breach of international law,” insisted West Papuan provisional government president Benny Wenda. “Shooting indiscriminately into homes and a public market is a form of collective punishment, while the intentional killing of civilians is a war crime.”

This latest incident comes after Jakarta had been dropping bombs upon a makeshift refugee camp in Puncak’s Kembru District, causing West Papuans, who were already displaced to have to relocate once more. And there are currently 105,000 West Papuan villagers displaced in the highlands, due to the ongoing attacks on these unarmed people living in the planet’s third largest rainforest.

“What the carnage in Dogiyai demonstrates is that Indonesia views all West Papuans as legitimate targets,” Wenda further set out. “Elders, women, and children: no one is safe from the murderous vengeance of the Indonesian security state. The massacre triggered a wave of internal displacement, as terrified civilians fled into the mountains and surrounding villages.”

EU priorities profit over rights

A key issue for West Papua achieving its independence is due to the reluctance of other nations to raise the issue of the occupied Melanesian peoples, so as to not rock the boat with Jakarta. And Wenda recently pointed to the International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP) analysis of the September 2025 established EU–Indonesia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as an example.

IPWP considers that in signing off on the FTA, the European Union has effectively approved the ongoing environmental destruction and rights abuses caused by Indonesia in the Melanesian region. The West Papuan environment and its people’s rights were not considered during negotiations, yet a fair amount of LNG, palm oil and metals are sourced from West Papua by EU nations.

Prabowo first paid a visit to West Papau after becoming president in November 2024, with a key part of his tour being a visit to Merauke district, which is the site of the world’s largest deforestation project, with the clearing of an eventual 2 million hectares set to take place in order to facilitate giant sugarcane plantations.

In its assessment of the EU-Indonesia FTA, IPWP pointed out that the sustainability impact assessment of the free trade agreement with Indonesia made no mention of West Papua whatsoever, and this is while unprecedented deforestation and environmental destruction are being perpetrated in the Melanesian region.

The IPWP further charged the EU with failing to take the plight of the West Papuan people into any consideration when finalising the trade agreement. The parliamentarians pointed to the fraudulent 1969 UN-brokered referendum, which saw a little over 1,000 Papuans vote to stay with Indonesia, and they wondered why this was not an issue for European negotiators.

United in denial of self-determination

Wenda questioned in February, why, despite the fact that Indonesia has been carrying out attacks on unarmed West Papuan villages for coming on eight years now, Indonesia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro, was appointed to the position of president of the UN Human Rights Council in January.

The UN was further presented with a copy of the West Papuan People’s Petition back in 2019. This is a document that calls upon the UN to facilitate a new and legitimate vote on self-determination. The petition has been signed by 1.8 million West Papuans, or 70 percent of that Indigenous population. And yet, there has been no movement on this issue ever since.

“I reiterate our demand for Indonesia to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua,” said Wenda, who has been exiled from his homeland for decades. “Over 110 countries – a clear majority of the UN member states – have now demanded this visit, but Indonesia continues to refuse.”

“Dogiyai is not an isolated incident: every day brings a new atrocity,” the president of the West Papuan provisional government in waiting made clear in ending.

“How long will the world allow this to continue before Indonesia is made to suffer genuine diplomatic consequences for their refusal?”

PAUL GREGOIRE 

Paul Gregoire is a Sydney-based journalist and writer. He’s the winner of the 2021 NSW Council for Civil Liberties Award For Excellence In Civil Liberties Journalism. Prior to Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, Paul wrote for VICE and was the news editor at Sydney’s City Hub.

The humanitarian cost of Indonesia’s refusal to allow a UN Human Rights visit to West Papua 

Posted on by
Reply

Indonesia has refused the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights access to West Papua since 2019. This round-up details the human rights abuses Indonesia has committed in West Papua during that time. 
______________________________________________________________________

The ULMWP urges world leaders to renew the outstanding demand for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to West Papua, in the wake of the Dogiyai massacre of six West Papuans, including two minors, by the Indonesian police.

Since 2019, 111 UN member states – a clear majority of the UN General Assembly – have demanded a visit to West Papua by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The first of these demands was made in August 2019 by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), who labelled West Papua ‘the festering human rights sore’ of the Pacific region. Despite this pressure, Indonesia has consistently and deliberately blocked UN access to West Papua.

More than six years have passed since the initial state-level demand for a UN visit was made. To underscore the urgency of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visit, the ULMWP has provided a breakdown of how the human rights situation in West Papua has deteriorated since 2019.

Displacement:

  • At least 107,039 West Papuans are currently displaced by Indonesian military operations – perhaps one in fifteen West Papuans has been a refugee since 2019;
  • More than 20,000 West Papuans were displaced in 2025 alone;
  • A minimum of 1110 West Papuans have died as a result of internal displacement, from disease, malnutrition, or as a result of inadequate medical facilities;
  • Only localised or temporary returns home have been documented, such as 353 returnees in Maybrat in 2022;
  • Some IDPs have been displaced more than once, such as 900+ in Intan Jaya who were forced to leave their homes a second time in mid-2025;
  • Indonesia has at times bombed makeshift refugee camps in West Papua, including in Puncak in February 2026.

Extra-judicial killings:

  • It is impossible to verify the true number of West Papuans killed by Indonesian security forces, due to Indonesia’s strict media and NGO reporting ban, and routine misinformation spread by the Indonesian state in the wake of killings;
  • However, it is likely that at least 653 West Papuans have been killed since December 2018 (the numbers below are minimum estimates);
    • 2019: 278
    • 2020-2021: 93
    • 2022: 33
    • 2023: 81
    • 2024: 40
    • 2025-2026: 128 so far
  • Mass killings are common and accountability is effectively non-existent. Emblematic mass killings during this period include:
  • Fifteen civilians massacred in Soanggama village, Intan Jaya, in October 2025;
  • Up to fifteen civilians executed during a military raid in Intan Jaya in May 2025;
  • ‘Bloody Wamena’: Ten Papuans murdered by security forces (pictured above) in Wamena in February 2023;
  • Ten Papuan civilians massacred in Yahukimo and Fakfak in September 2023;
  • Fifteen killed in Kiwirok in 2021.

Militarisation:

  • As of December 2025, at least 83,177 security forces were stationed in West Papua, roughly one for every twenty-two Indigenous Papuans;
  • This figure includes 56,517 soldiers and 26,660 police, but does not include forces temporarily deployed to West Papua from other regions of Indonesia, so the real number is likely to be higher;
  • At least 40,000 additional troops have been deployed to West Papua since 2019;
  • Hundreds of military posts have been established in West Papua during this time; while no hard figure is available for the entire territory, we know that 31 checkpoints were established between July and September 2025 in Intan Jaya alone;
  • Indonesia is using a range of technologically advanced weaponry on West Papuans, including Brazilian‑made EMB‑314 Super Tucano fighter jets, Chinese blowfish drones, and UK-made sniper rifles.

Environmental destruction:
Douglas Gerrard | The World's Largest Deforestation Project

  • Ecocide in occupied West Papua has increased dramatically since 2019, as Indonesia seeks to use West Papua to secure its future food and energy security;
  • Indonesia launched the largest deforestation project in human history in West Papua in 2024 – a 3-million-hectare rice and sugarcane food estate in Merauke (pictured above), since expanded to the entire South Papua Province;
  • The Merauke food estate – covering an area the size of Wales – is set to release an additional 780 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, more than doubling Indonesia’s existing emissions;
  • Wabu Block, a 1.8-million-hectare gold mine in Intan Jaya, has been under construction since 2021, and continues to displace communities and militarise the Papuan highlands;
  • In 2024, BP completed an expansion of its Tangguh gas field in West Papua, which will now supply 35% of Indonesia’s entire gas supply.

Secrecy is the key weapon Indonesia uses to maintain its genocidal and ecocidal rule over West Papua. By keeping its occupation hidden from the world, Indonesia is able to get away with its crimes with near total impunity, while continuing to expropriate West Papua’s huge mineral wealth. Only international intervention, beginning with a UN Human Rights visit, can stop this suffering. Indonesia must face serious diplomatic consequences until the UN High Commissioner access to West Papua is finally allowed to visit West Papua.

IPWP Chair Alex Sobel with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk

Acid attack against human rights defender Andrie Yunus in Central Jakarta

Posted on by
Reply

17 March 2026 / 3 minutes of reading

On 12 March 2026, Mr Andrie Yunus, Deputy Coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), was attacked with acid by unidentified perpetrators whilst riding a motorcycle on Jalan Salemba I–Talang, Central Jakarta. The attack caused serious injuries affecting various body parts, including his face, eyes, chest, and hands. Mr Yunus was subsequently admitted to Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital (RSCM) in Jakarta, where he remains under specialised medical care.

Earlier that evening, Mr Andrie Yunus had attended and recorded a podcast discussion on “Remilitarisation and Judicial Review in Indonesia” at the offices of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI). After leaving the premises, he travelled by motorcycle through Central Jakarta. According to CCTV analysis and witness statements, the suspected perpetrators had followed Mr Yunus on two motorcycles after he had left the YLBHI office.

At approximately 11:30 pm, the suspects were observed waiting near a petrol station and a fast-food outlet in Cikini, before resuming surveillance as the victim continued his journey. Shortly thereafter, at around 23:37 pm, the perpetrators approached him on their motorcycle from the opposite direction on Jalan Talang. While passing Mr Yunus, the person sitting in the back splashed a corrosive substance believed to be acid directly at his face and upper body. The victim fell from his motorcycle and screamed for assistance. Residents nearby provided immediate aid and arranged his transfer for emergency medical treatment.

Police later confirmed that the perpetrators split up after the attack, travelling towards different areas including Ragunan, Kalibata, and Bogor. Investigators analysed footage from approximately 86 CCTV cameras across Jakarta in an effort to reconstruct the suspects’ movements. Evidence recovered from the scene reportedly includes a purple tumbler-type container believed to have contained the acid, as well as other items such as a helmet suspected to belong to one of the attackers.

Investigation and developments

The Jakarta Metropolitan Police elevated the case from preliminary investigation to a formal criminal inquiry aimed at identifying suspects, citing indications of premeditation, coordination, and surveillance prior to the attack. Authorities believe the perpetrators monitored the victim’s daily routines and selected the timing and location strategically.

Civil society organisations, legal experts, and members of the Advocacy Team for Democracy have characterised the attack as an attempted premediated murder, emphasising similarities with previous attacks on activists in Indonesia, including the acid attack against anti-corruption investigator Novel Baswedan (2017) and the poisoning murder of HRD Munir Said Thalib (2004). They raised concerns that investigations in such cases historically failed to identify or prosecute alleged masterminds.

Indonesia’s President reportedly instructed the National Police Chief to ensure a professional, transparent, and professional investigation, while parliamentary oversight bodies pledged to monitor progress. The United Nations human rights leadership publicly expressed grave concern over the attack, emphasising the obligation of the State to protect human rights defenders and hold perpetrators accountable.

Human rights analysis

The acid attack constitutes a grave violation of the rights to life, security of person, and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as a direct attack on the legitimate work of a human rights defender. The apparent premeditation, use of dangerous corrosive substances, and coordinated surveillance strongly indicate that the act may qualify as attempted premeditated murder under Indonesian criminal law.

Moreover, the attack reflects a broader pattern of intimidation and violence against civil society actors in Indonesia, raising concerns regarding impunity, inadequate HRD protection mechanisms, and potential involvement or tolerance by elements linked to state institutions. The failure to conduct an effective investigation could further undermine public trust in the rule of law and Indonesia’s democratic commitments.

Under international law, Indonesia has a positive obligation to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide remedies for attacks against human rights defenders, particularly when such acts may be linked to their advocacy work. The targeting of Mr Andrie Yunus following his involvement in sensitive issues, including security sector legislation and past protest investigations, suggests a possible retaliatory motive aimed at silencing dissenting voices.

Detailed Case Data
Location: Jl. Salemba I No.8A, RT.3/RW.6, Kenari, Kec. Senen, Kota Jakarta Pusat, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta 10320, Indonesia (-6.1988339, 106.8492458) 
Region: Indonesia, Jakarta
Total number of victims: 1

#Number of VictimsName, DetailsGenderAgeGroup AffiliationViolations
1.1 Andrie Yunus

diverseadult Human Rights Defender (HRD)right to life, torture

Period of incident: 12/03/2026 – 12/03/2026
Perpetrator: , Other
Issues: human rights defenders

————————————–

Drone attack on the office of Papuan movement organisation KNPB in Jayapura

Posted on by
Reply

18 March 2026 /

The headquarters of the Papuan movement organisation West Papua National Committee (KNPB) in Jayapura, Papua Province, were attacked by a drone in the early hours of 16 March 2026 at approximately 04:16 am. The drone reportedly dropped an explosive device which detonated in the office courtyard whilst several KNPB members and officials were asleep inside the building. The incident follows a previous arson attack against the same office on 17 January 2026, indicating an emerging pattern of intimidation against the political activists and human rights defenders in West Papua.

The KNPB is a non-violent civil resistance movement in West Papua, which has been organising West Papua-wide mass protests for self-determination through a political referendum for more than ten years. Their members have committed to non-violent protest by organising peaceful demonstrations and political discussions.

According to information documented by local human rights activists, an unidentified drone is believed to have dropped an explosive device into the courtyard of the KNPB headquarters in the Kambolker area in Waena, a sub-district of Jayapura City. The device reportedly exploded approximately two metres from the main office building and near the boundary wall separating the compound from a residential area.

The loud explosion abruptly awakened KNPB members sleeping inside the office and caused panic among occupants and nearby residents. Several residents reportedly left their homes and gathered at the scene. Following the incident, local human rights activists conducted preliminary documentation, including photographing the crime scene and collecting visible fragments believed to be components of the explosive device. The impact of the detonation in the courtyard of the KNPB office was still visible on the following day, illustrating the force of the blast and the potential lethality of the attack (see photos below, source: independent HRD).

Given that multiple individuals were present inside the building at the time, the incident posed a serious and immediate threat to life and physical integrity. The attack also significantly undermined the sense of safety of civil society actors operating in Jayapura City and more broadly in the Papuan provinces.

Fragments believed to be part of the explosive device, including black metal plates suspected to be bomb casing, cardboard fragments, small screws and bolts.

Previous arson attack in January 2026

The drone attack follows a prior attack on the same office on 17 January 2026 at approximately 3:16 am. During that incident, unknown perpetrators allegedly poured petrol on the office walls and set them alight. KNPB members who were asleep at the time awoke upon noticing flames and were able to extinguish the fire manually, preventing the blaze from spreading further. Witnesses reported that the perpetrators fled the scene in a black Toyota Avanza vehicle waiting nearby.

Evidence documented after the arson attempt reportedly included traces of petrol on the office wall, a container wrapped in duct tape, plastic sheeting, and a grey handkerchief (see photos below, source: independent HRD).

Pattern of intimidation against civil society organisations

These two incidents appear to form part of a broader pattern of intimidation targeting civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders in Indonesia. On 12 March 2026, Mr Andrie Yunus, Deputy Coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), was attacked with acid by unidentified perpetrators whilst riding a motorcycle on Jalan Salemba I–Talang, Central Jakarta. The issue has also reached alarming levels in the Papuan provinces. Previous attacks in the region include a Molotov cocktail attack against the office of the independent media outlet JUBI in October 2024.

The reported use of drone technology to deliver an explosive device suggests a relatively high level of planning and operational capability. Such methods heighten concerns regarding the security for organisations engaged in critical journalism, human rights advocacy and community mobilisation. At the time of writing, no official investigation had publicly identified the perpetrators or established a motive. Civil society actors have called for a transparent, independent, and comprehensive investigation into the alleged attacks.

Human rights analysis

The bombing and earlier arson attempt potentially engage multiple human rights protections under international and Indonesian law. Attacks against civil society organisations threaten the right to security of person, the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of expression. These right are enshrined in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a party.

States have a positive obligation not only to refrain from violating human rights but also to protect individuals and organisations from harm by third parties. Failure to prevent, investigate, and prosecute repeated attacks may raise concerns regarding state compliance with its duty of due diligence. Such incidents may also contribute to a climate of fear that restricts civic space and undermines democratic participation in the Papuan provinces.

Drone attack on 16 March 2026

Arson attack on 17 January 2026

Detailed Case Data
Location: Kampung Waena, Heram, Jayapura City, Papua, Indonesia (-2.5932318, 140.6339916)Kamwolker area, Waena
Region: Indonesia, Papua, Jayapura, Heram
Total number of victims: few

#Number of VictimsName, DetailsGenderAgeGroup AffiliationViolations
1.few 

diverseunknown Indigenous Peoplesfreedom of assembly, freedom of expression, intimidation

Period of incident: 16/03/2026 – 16/03/2026
Perpetrator: Other
Issues: indigenous peoples ————————————————————————————————

Malind Indigenous People Defend Their Customary Land Rights Under Intimidation

Posted on by
Reply

March 6, 2026 in Animha Reading Time: 4 mins read

0

Author: Aida Ulim – Editor: Arjuna Pademme

Jayapura, Jubi – The struggle of the Malind indigenous people in Merauke Regency, South Papua, to defend their customary lands and forests from government land clearing projects for plantation and agricultural investment has not been easy. They have faced intimidation and pressure from the military.

Andreas Mahuse, a Malind indigenous person, said that the community there experienced pressure from the military following the forest clearing. Around a thousand military personnel were stationed in Ilwayab District, Merauke Regency.

According to him, a number of mistakes were made by the central government, provincial government, and Merauke Regency Government in implementing investment projects in the Malind community’s customary territory.

“The first is the taking of customary land since 2024 without the consent and notification of the indigenous community,” said Andreas Mahuse after the Malind indigenous community filed a lawsuit with the Jayapura State Administrative Court (PTUN Jayapura) in Waena, Jayapura City, Papua, on Thursday (March 5, 2026).

He said there had never been any dialogue or negotiation between the government or the company and the indigenous community regarding land ownership status and the planned transfer of land to the company.

“There should have been a meeting with us, the indigenous people, to discuss who owns this land and whether or not the community agreed to its use. However, such a process never occurred,” he said.

Andreas Mahuse stated that the lawsuit filed with the Jayapura Administrative Court (PTUN) was also part of the Malind indigenous people’s efforts to defend their customary land.

The lawsuit was filed by five representatives of the Malind indigenous people: Simon Petrus Balagaize, Sinta Gebze, Andreas Mahuze, Liborius Kodai Moiwend, and Kanisius Dagil, under case number 9/G/LH/2026/PTUN Jayapura.

The Malind indigenous people are challenging the Merauke Regent’s Decree Number 100.3.3.2/1105/2025 concerning the environmental feasibility permit for the construction of a 135-kilometer road for the National Strategic Project (PSN).

“[This lawsuit] is a form of struggle to defend customary land and forests from the government’s National Strategic Project (PSN) for rice paddy development,” said Andreas Mahuse.

Andreas Mahuse explained that the 135-kilometer road, part of the rice paddy development project, was forcibly constructed without the community’s consent.

The road stretches from Wanam Village, Ilwayab District, passing through several villages and reaching Muting District.

“The villages [through which the road construction passes] include Wanam, Wogikel, Salamepe, Nakias, Tagaepe, Ilhalik, Kapdel, and Solo Village. This project also crosses several districts, namely Ilwayab, Ngguti, and Muting Districts,” he said.

The indigenous community ultimately filed the lawsuit, alleging administrative errors in the project. Forest clearing for road construction began in September 2024, but the environmental permit document was only issued in September 2025.

“This is a very serious state administrative error for us indigenous people,” he said.

Furthermore, Mahuse continued, the indigenous community has never seen important documents such as the Environmental Impact Analysis (AMDAL) or the technical development planning documents.

The project is also considered to have the potential to damage the indigenous community’s culture, as it has changed the community’s lifestyle, which has traditionally relied on sago as a staple food, replacing it with rice.

“This is not only an environmental issue, but also a violation of the indigenous community’s cultural rights,” said Andreas Mahuse.

Another representative of the Malind indigenous community, Sinta Gebze from Wanam Village, said the company entered their customary territory without the community’s permission, with a large military escort, which has made the community afraid to resist directly.

According to her, some residents have experienced violence from security forces. They were beaten, resulting in injuries, and some were even paralyzed.

“Furthermore, I experienced intimidation while at a place of worship. I was picked up at the church door. I asked them, ‘What did I do wrong? I was just defending my land rights,'” said Sinta Gebze.

He said the company’s activities continue day and night, and the indigenous people have been unable to stop the clearing of their forests and gardens.

“The community has been demanding compensation for the cleared crops since 2024, but there has been no response from the company,” said Sinta Gebze.

Another Malind indigenous community member, Simon Petrus Balagaize, said the project has also sparked social conflict among the indigenous people, as some accepted the company’s offer, while others refused. The conflict culminated in violence and the burning of the homes of residents who opposed the project.

“Initially, the project was carried out by PT Jhonlin Group, then by other companies, but these companies denied their involvement,” said Simon Petrus Balagaize.

He said that most of the Malind’s customary territory has now been divided into various company concessions. Of the approximately two million hectares of customary territory, the majority has been included in company concessions or designated as production forest areas.

“The last remaining forest is our habitat, along with cassowaries, birds-of-paradise, and many other animals. There’s also sago, our staple food,” he said.

The Malind indigenous people, according to Balagaize, do not oppose development. Instead, they want to be respected as owners of their customary land. For indigenous people, the forest is a living space that provides all their needs.

“For us, the forest is heaven; God has provided everything there. That’s why we defend our forest. Customary land does not belong to the village head, the traditional chief, or the government, but to the clan, passed down from generation to generation,” he said.

He stated that if any clan holding customary rights disagrees, the customary land cannot be relinquished. Balagaize called for solidarity and support for the Malind indigenous people’s struggle to defend their customary land and forest. (*)

Intimidation against indigenous leader in connection with the planned construction of Indonesian military headquarters in Biak

Posted on by
Reply

14 January 2026 / 4 minutes of reading

Between 30 November and 9 December 2025, a series of intimidation and surveillance incidents were reportedly directed against Mr Apolos Sroyer, Chair of the Biak Customary Council and Chief of the Biak Tribe, in the Biak–Supiori Regency, Papua province. The acts are allegedly linked to his peaceful leadership of indigenous opposition to the planned construction of new military (TNI) headquarters. The actions by military officials may amount to violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, including intimidation and interference with legitimate customary leadership.

Mr Apolos Sroyer is a long-standing indigenous leader and a founder of the Papuan Customary Council (2001). He is the Chief of the Biak Tribe for the 2017–2029 period. He has led non-violent efforts to protect customary lands, resolve land and social disputes through customary justice, and prevent state encroachment on indigenous territories without consent.

Between 2018 and 2024, the Indonesian Government advanced plans to construct military headquarters and battalion facilities within the customary territory of Biak–Supiori Regency. Indigenous communities consistently rejected these plans, citing threats to their living space, cultural survival, and security, and the absence of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Human rights observers expressed concerns that the formation of three new Indonesian Military battalions in Biak, Supiori, and Waropen has the potential to create human rights violations.

Escalation and military deployment

In November–December 2025, approximately 1,200–1,750 TNI personnel were reportedly deployed to Biak–Supiori Regency, occupying schools and public facilities. This large-scale military presence revived collective trauma linked to the past Military Operations Zone (DOM) period and intensified fear among indigenous communities. The three battalions are Territorial Development Battalion units, which are prepared to implement food security projects, and conduct infrastructure development.

On 5 December 2025, a customary meeting was held in the Ababiadi Village Office, South Supiori District, attended by the Biak Customary Council and representatives of 13 clans. The meeting formally declared rejection of the planned construction of military headquarters on their customary land, reaffirming that the project violated FPIC and endangered the survival of the Biak indigenous people. Despite this, the local district military commander reportedly announced plans to proceed with eviction on 9 December 2025.

Following the customary rejection, Mr Apolos Sroyer repeatedly became the target of intimidation. On 30 November 2025, unidentified officials visited his home without prior notice, followed the same night by drone surveillance reportedly conducted for several hours. On 9 December 2025, intelligence vehicles allegedly followed Mr Sroyer while he was in Jayapura. Meanwhile, TNI members reportedly attempted to create division between indigenous clans and coerce the community into accepting the military project. These actions created a credible climate of fear, raising concerns about possible physical harm, constant surveillance, and the risk of criminalisation of a legitimate indigenous leader.

Impact on indigenous communities

The planned military construction and associated intimidation have had severe impacts on the affected indigenous communities in Biak, including the threatened seizure of customary land and restriction of access to land, sea, and gardens, deepening collective trauma, and the risk of cultural destruction. Community members emphasise that the land concerned is not empty land, but integral to their identity, livelihood, and spiritual life.

Biak indigenous leaders and customary authorities have publicly stated that they reject the presence of military bases on indigenous territories. Customary rights cannot be relinquished without collective customary deliberation.

Human rights analysis

The reported acts may amount to violations of the right to security of person, freedom from intimidation, the rights of indigenous peoples to land and self-determination, and the obligation of the state to obtain FPIC before undertaking projects affecting indigenous territories as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The intimidation of a customary leader for peacefully exercising his mandate raises serious concerns about reprisals against human rights defenders.

Customary meeting in the Ababiadi Village, South Supiori District, attended by the Biak Customary Council and representatives of 13 clans on 5 December 2025

Detailed Case Data
Location: Biak, Papua, Indonesia (-1.0381022, 135.9800848) 
Region: Indonesia, Papua, Biak Numfor
Total number of victims: dozens

#Number of VictimsName, DetailsGenderAgeGroup AffiliationViolations
1.1 Apolos Sroyer

maleadult Human Rights Defender (HRD), Indigenous Peoplesintimidation
2.dozens 

Indigenous Peoplesintimidation

Period of incident: 30/11/2025 – 09/12/2025
Perpetrator: , Indonesian Military (TNI)
Issues: business, human rights and FPIC, human rights defenders, indigenous peoples