INDONESIA: Police killed two villagers and injured 82 others in anti-gold mining protest 

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) received information that the police shot local farmers who were demonstrating against the gold exploration plan in several sub-districts in Bima, West Nusa Tenggara Province, on 24 December 2011. Two villagers died and 77 others were injured in the shooting. Five others were also injured by police violence. Police arrested the protesters and 37 were reportedly held in custody whereas only two police officers were sentenced to a light two-day imprisonment for the attack.

CASE NARRATIVE:

(Photo: Protest against gold exploration plans and land grabbing/source: KontraS)

According to the information from the Commission for the Disappeared Victims of Violence (KontraS), a human rights group based in Jakarta, in the early morning of 24 December 2011, about 500 police officers came to Sape Seaport, Bima, where local farmers were conducting a peaceful demonstration against the gold exploration plan in the sub-districts of Sape, Lambu and Langgudu of Bima Regency. The Bima Regent, Mr. Ferry Zulkarnaen, had given concession to PT. Sumber Mineral Nusantara (SMN) for gold exploration on 24,980 hectares of land in Sape, Lambu and Langgudu, Bima. To suppress and disperse the protest, armed police officers led by the Head of Bima District Police, AKBP Kumpul KS arrived at the scene. Moreover, snipers were reportedly positioned on the roof of local houses, and there were approximately 15 ambulances provided by the police.

Mr. Hassanudin, who led the demonstration, informed the police that they would leave the port if the police agreed to provide them with a guarantee letter for their safety. Despite this peaceful proposal, Mr. Hassanudin was arrested and the Mobile Brigade (Brimob) started shooting at protesters and villagers, resulting in two deaths and the injury of 77 persons. Five others were injured as a result of police beatings. The police arrested protesters while kicking and hitting them with guns; 37 of those arrested are still being held in custody. The police later conducted an operation to find and arrest the participants of the demonstration in surrounding villages.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) subsequently claimed that the shooting amounted to violations of Law No. 39 Year 1999 on Human Rights. The NHRC gave its investigation result to the Indonesian National Police, which responded by promising that it would ‘follow-up what the NHRC has found’ so that ‘it is clear to us what actually the problems are about’. The National Head of Police, General Timur Pradopo, also promised that the investigation and trial regarding this case would be transparent.

On 19 January 2012, two members of the Mobile Brigade were sentenced to two days in prison, and a two-month delay of their educational programs was sanctioned. First Brig. Wahidin and First Brig. Furqon were convicted by the West Nusa Tenggara Police’s disciplinary court for insubordination and violating procedures. As the police disciplinary court does not provide criminal accountability, the responsible officers must be properly investigated, prosecuted and punished in accordance with Indonesia’s criminal procedure law.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

PT. Sumber Mineral Nusantara (SMN) is a multinational mining company, 95 percent of whose shares are held by Arc Exploration, an Australian publicly listed company along with Indonesian partner, Sumber Mineral Nusantara focused on gold exploration in Indonesia. Refusal to the gold exploration plan from local farmers in Lambu sub-district had been expressed since October 2010. Although SMN obtained the exploration permit from the Regency administration in 2008, the local residents were aware of this only since 2010 because the permit was granted without any consultation or notification to the local residents who would be affected. Furthermore, the residents have been expressing their concern that the gold mine operation will dry up the water resources, which would disrupt the farmers’ agricultural activities and livelihood. The question about environmental destruction has been also raised. (Photo: Destroyed property after clashes and police attack/source: KontraS)

Assisted by local students, in January 2011 the farmers held another demonstration urging the Head of Lambu sub-district to sign an open letter refusing the exploration plan. The Head of Lambu sub-district failed to sign the open letter for the reason that it required a consultation with the Bima Regent. Later in December 2011, the local farmers held a demonstration and visited several heads of villages to collect their signatures and support to oppose the gold mining.

As the administration continued to ignore the farmers’ concerns, the farmers decided to occupy Sape Seaport to urge the Bima Regent to revoke the concession. The demonstration started on 19 December 2011, but on the fifth day, hundreds of police officers including Brimob officers as well as patrol (sabhara) came to the port. Their intention was to disperse the demonstration as it was disturbing the activities of ferries and ships wishing to dock in the port. The representatives of the farmers were later invited by the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) for a dialogue, along with the representatives of the police. The dialogue led to the conclusion that the safety of the protesters would be guaranteed as they leave the port and that the local government will re-evaluate the concession issued to the company.

The shooting in Sape Port led to the anger of local residents and brought the land issue to the attention of the public. After persistent pressures from the local farmers in Bima as well as various civil society organizations, the Regent decided to revoke the permit it previously gave to SMN as confirmed by the Energy and Mineral Resources Minister, Jero Wacik, on 26 January 2012.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

According to Law No. 9 Year 1998 concerning Freedom to Express Opinion in Public, state officers have the obligation to protect human rights where citizens are expressing their opinion in public. This obligation is also emphasised in the Head of Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 16 Year 2006 concerning Guidance on Mass Control. Moreover, the same regulation sets out that in dealing with protests, police officers are not allowed to take live ammunitions. Article 7 (2) (d) of the Head of Indonesian National Police Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 on Use of Force establishes that weapons with live ammunitions can be used only against aggressive activities which require urgent response, that is, activities which may cause severe injury or death, threaten the decency of police officers or may threaten public safety.

These rules are in accordance with the well established international human rights standards on the use of force by law enforcement officials. As rightly set out in the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, law enforcement officials shall use force and firearms ‘only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.’ Non-violent means should always be used first, before resorting to force and firearms. Any officials who use force and firearms arbitrarily or abusively should be punished as a criminal offence under the law. This principle is also reiterated in the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, which states that the use of force shall only be exercised ‘when strictly necessary’ and ‘to the extent required for the performance of their duty.’

In terms of land rights and multinational companies’ activities, international human rights standards oblige the states to consult communities before granting mining permits to such companies. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has published the Minimum Human Rights Principles Applicable to Large-scale Land Acquisition or Leases, which reads ‘[t]he negotiations leading to investment agreement should be conducted in a fully transparent manner, and with the participation of the local communities whose access to land and other productive resources may be affected as a result of the investment agreement’. Furthermore, states have to ensure that ‘any shifts in land use can only take place with the free, prior, and informed consent of the local communities concerned’. In his communication regarding Indonesia, the UN Special Rapporteur himself has also expressed his concerns regarding the lack of consultation and discussion with the communities in a case involving a company in East Nusa Tenggara province.

The principle of public participation as enshrined in the international human rights documents are not reflected in Indonesian laws, particularly in Law No. 4 Year 2009 on Mineral and Coals Mining. This law establishes that granting concession is an exclusive authority of the Regent, Mayor, Governor or relevant Minister – depending on the location of the land on which the mining activities are about to be conducted – and there is no obligation for them to consult the local communities who are likely to be affected by the mining activities. The absence of a substantive public participation provision in this law shows the failure of the law to provide any preventive protection to local communities from the negative impacts of the companies’ activities. The law only has one article concerning the rights of local communities in this matter, that is, to ask for compensation and to sue the mining companies for any abuses and loss caused by the activities of the company. For this reason, several NGOs in Indonesia have filed a constitutional review submission to the Constitutional Court, but the judgment has yet to be delivered.

The police’s internal accountability mechanism lacks impartiality and repeatedly gives lenient punishment to officers involved in violence and illegal behaviour. Furthermore, the prosecutor often avoids criminal proceedings when the police internal mechanism addresses the case. It must be noted that not only does the police internal disciplinary mechanism not provide sufficient accountability, but more essentially, it is not a replacement of criminal procedure.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities listed below urging them to ensure that a thorough investigation be conducted into this incident and the responsible police officers held accountable.

The AHRC will send separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and on the right to adequate food respectively.

To support this appeal, please click here:

 

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER