There have been further developments concerning the death of prominent human rights lawyer Munir Said Thalib on board a flight of Indonesia’s national carrier on September 7, 2004. Munir died of arsenic poisoning aboard a Garuda Indonesia Airways flight destined for Amsterdam. It is believed that he was assassinated due to his work in favour of human rights, notably forced disappearances, in Indonesia. Munir’s wife, Suciwati, launched a civil suit against Garuda Airways for negligence and failure to take appropriate action to safeguard the life of its passenger.
On May 3, 2007, a panel of judges in the District Court of Central Jakarta led by Andriani Nurdin, found defendant I (PT Garuda Indonesia), defendant II (former Garuda Managing Director Indra Setiawan) and defendant IX (aircraft captain Pantum Matondang) guilty of having “committed actions against the law.” They were ordered to pay Rp 664,209,900 (about USD 72,000) to Suciwati, the late Munir’s wife.
In their deliberations, the judges referred to the Warsaw Convention (an international convention which regulates liability for international carriage of persons, luggage or goods by aircraft) and widened the definition of plane accident so that it is not limited to a plane crash. The judges also used the Consumers Protection Law in their deliberations.
One major point of negligence on the part of defendant IX, the aircraft’s captain, was that he did not communicate with the ground authorities to request an emergency landing when Munir fell seriously ill.
Suciwati expressed her disappointment when the announcement was made, as, despite the victory, she was surprised that the panel of judges did not order an internal investigation by Garuda. Such an investigation is required in order to clarify a number of unresolved matters pertaining to Mr. Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto, an off-duty Garuda Airways Pilot who is alleged to have carried out the killing, having been authorised to take this particular flight to Singapore. In previous criminal proceedings concerning this case, Pollycarpus was found to have falsified a Garuda Airways work roster, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment, although he was surprisingly not found guilty of premeditated murder. The circumstances which made this forgery possible need to be investigated, as this could not have been done alone? The need for such an investigation is clear given Garuda Airways’ responsibility to the public, according to Suciwati. Her request for a public apology by Garuda has also been turned down.
The decision by the panel of judges finding the three defendants guilty should be welcomed. It is significant that ordinary citizens have been able to claim a victory against such an important State enterprise, and this sets a precedent that paves the way for consumers to find success when seeking redress for violations of their rights in future. However, the lack of an internal investigation by Garuda, a formal apology by them and the inadequate quantum of payment made to the victim’s wife and the family are obviously far from satisfactory. By recommending such a low amount of money be provided as reparation, the panel of judges has failed to recognize the gravity of the case or the value attached to the life of a person.
As regards the criminal case concerning Munir’s murder, due to mounting local and international pressure, the country’s new Attorney General has expressed his willingness to reopen the case. The police have also revealed that they have secured a key witness as the result of investigations into two suspects, the afore-mentioned former Director of Garuda Indra Setiawan, and the secretary to the chief pilot, Ms. Rohainil Aini. It is hoped that Munir’s murder trial will begin soon and that it will live up to the internationally recognised standards for fair trials. This trial will be an important indicator of the state of human rights and the fight against impunity in Indonesia.
