The Jakarta High Court has upheld a defamation verdict against journalist Goenawan Mohamad and press group PT Tempo Inti Media Harian for one billion Indonesian rupees (nearly 100,000 euros) and ordered it to publish apologies in two national dailies. Businessman Tomy Winata, who brought the case, had lodged a score of complaints against the daily Koran Tempo and the weekly Tempo.
The court on January 6 found Mohamad guilty of violating the presumption of innocence and defaming Tomy Winata by calling him a "thug" in an article carried in March 2003 by the daily Koran Tempo. A few days earlier, a crowd of Winata supporters attacked the offices of Tempo in Jakarta, injuring several journalists. The weekly had published an investigation on the possible implication of the controversial businessman in a fire at a market.
"Indonesian courts have started the year by sending a terrible signal for press freedom," Paris-based Reporters sans Frontières (RSF) said. "Sentencing a journalist to a swingeing fine because he expressed an opinion about a businessman who sent his henchmen to threaten a newspaper is unacceptable," RSF said. It also urged the Indonesian government to reform the law on defamation so that the fines that can be imposed cannot threaten a media's very existence.
Lawyers for the press group Tempo are planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. One of them, Darwin Aritonang, was quoted by the Jakarta Post as saying that the "verdict is too much".
In August 2004, Amnesty International too had expressed concern that the charges against the three men were intended to limit their right to freedom of expression. The charges against Bambang Harymurti (Chief Editor), Iskandar Ali (Editor) and Ahmad Taufik (Journalist) centred around an article that appeared in Tempo's March 3, 2003 edition. The article cited allegations that Tomy Winata, one of Indonesia's most powerful businessmen, stood to profit from a fire that had destroyed part of the Tanah Abang textile market in Jakarta in February 2003 and raised questions about Tommy Winata's possible responsibility for it. The same article included a statement from Tommy Winata denying the allegation, as well as a denial of a plan to build a shopping centre on the site by an official in the Jakarta administration.
Following the publication of the article, Winata filed several lawsuits against Tempo magazine. The three journalists are being tried under Article 14 of Law No. 1/1946 for publishing materials that could provoke unrest, and Articles 310 and 311 of the Indonesian Criminal Code for defamation, which carry a maximum eight and four year prison sentence respectively.
Amnesty International had said that the charges were being brought even though the Tempo article did not appear to have violated journalistic ethics, Tempo having adhered to the journalistic norm of covering both sides. The prosecution has also called for the immediate imprisonment of all three defendants pending appeal – except in the case of violent crimes or cases where absconding is a likelihood, it is more usual in Indonesia for the accused to remain free pending an appeal.
In a related case, Winata also filed charges of libel seeking substantial damages against Tempo founder Goenawan Mohamad, for a statement he made during a demonstration following the attack on the Tempo staff and offices by Winata's supporters. Goenawan Mohamad warned reporters against "allowing Indonesia to fall into the hands of hoodlums, or into the hands of Tommy Winata."
On 29 September 2003, the East Jakarta District Court ordered the sequestration, as collateral, of Mohamad's private house which prohibits him from selling the property until there is a verdict. This move is usually used in business disputes and is extremely unusual in a defamation case.
According to Amnesty International, the seriousness of the charges against the Tempo journalists contrasts strikingly with the court's treatment of an attack on Tempo staff by Winata supporters who went to the Tempo magazine office to protest after the article's publication. Although two of the protesters were tried for assault and inciting violence, only one was convicted and received a five month suspended sentence. By contrast Tempo staff, who were the victims of this violence, are facing prison terms of up to eight years simply for carrying out their journalistic duties.
