Klinik Farma – Two defendants in the Luhut Binsar Panjaitan libel case, Haris Azhar and Fatiya Maulidiyanti, said they did not want to be forced to testify against each other in court.
Haris stressed that he refuses to be a witness to the crown against Fatia or to testify in his own trial. This was also stated from the very beginning. He believed that every defendant had the right to refuse to be a witness for the Crown.
“Any defendant cannot be forced to testify on his own behalf. I think this is fundamental. I still refuse because I don’t want to testify in my case,” Haris told the East Jakarta District Court (PN Jaktim) on Monday (14/8/2023).
Like Haris Azhar, Fatia stated that he did not want the public prosecutor (JPU) to testify as a key witness.
Read also:Prosecutor says Haris Azhar and Fatiya have no legal grounds to refuse to be prosecution witnesses in ‘Lord’ Luhut’s trial
“If the prosecutor objects, we also don’t want to be forced to testify against each other,” Fatia said.
However, Fatiya mentioned that she and Haris are ready to stand trial in this case.
“As defendants, we want to be (interrogated),” he said.
Previously, the prosecutor believed that Haris and Fatia’s refusal to testify against each other in court had no clear legal basis.
Read also:Compact! Haris Azhar and Fatiya refuse to testify against each other at Lord Luhut’s trial
The prosecutor said that Haris and Fatia do not belong to the category of witnesses who may refuse to testify in court.
“That the refusal presented by the parties was not based on official, official law. Since, as we know, part 1 of Article 322, the parties, when testifying as witnesses, are not included in the group that can refuse to testify as witnesses, ”the Society said. Prosecutor in the courtroom of the East Java District Court, Monday (14/8/2023).
“And also the parties are not subject to the provisions of Article 168, namely the parties who can testify as witnesses, who are obliged to keep state secrets and so on,” the prosecutor said.
In this case, the prosecutor also cited a Circular Letter from the Supreme Court (MA), which stated that the testimony of the main witness could be heard in court.
“We cite Supreme Court Circular No. 5 of 2015, where the Supreme Court practically recognized the existence of a key witness who must be presented to testify as a witness,” the prosecutor said.
With this in mind, the prosecutor asked the panel of judges to satisfy the petition for the interrogation of the witnesses of the defendants Haris Azhar and Fatiya.
“Therefore, the opinion of the parties to testify as a key witness is unfounded, Your Honor,” the prosecutor continued.
For information, Haris and Fatia were accused by the prosecutor’s office of slandering Luhut Binsar Panjaitan.
The prosecutor said that statements by Haris and Fatiya in a video uploaded through Haris’s YouTube account tarnished Luhut’s good name.
The video is called “Lord Luhut is behind the military-economic relations of Intan Jaya!! There is also a common BIN! >NgeHAMtam’. The issue discussed in the video is a brief study by the Clean Indonesia Coalition entitled “Political-Economic Aspects of Military Deployment in Papua: The Intan Jaya Case”.
Haris and Fatia were charged under Section 27 Section 3, together with Section 45 Section 3 of the ITE Law, Section 14, Section 2 of Law No. 1 of 1946, Section 15 of Law No. 1 of 1946, and Section 310 of the Criminal Code. Each of these articles is in conjunction with part 1 of article 55 of the Criminal Code.