1) Military members allegedly intimidate and arbitrarily detain Papuan Villager in Maybrat Regency
10 November 2026 / 3 minutes of reading
A 39-year-old indigenous Papuan, Mr Hendrikus Kawen, reportedly faced coercive questioning and arbitrary detention after being summoned by Indonesian Navy (TNI AL) personnel in Sory Village, South Aifat District, Maybrat Regency, Papua Barat Daya Province, on 27 October 2026. According to information provided local informants, military personnel instructed the Sory Village administration and local community to facilitate Mr Kawen’s travel from Sorong for questioning at a military post in Sory Village. Following the interrogation, Navy members prevented him from returning to Sorong and forced him to stay in a residential house near the navy post.
According to the family’s account, TNI AL personnel stationed in Sory Village exerted pressure on the village administration and community members to arrange for Mr Hendrikus Kawen to travel from Sorong to Sory Village on 27 October 2026. Upon his arrival, Mr Kawen was required to provide a statement at the local Navy post. Following the questioning, he was reportedly not permitted to return to his residence. Instead, TNI members reportedly forced him to spent the night on the front veranda of a residential house nearby residential house (see photo on top, source: independent HRD).
The family further reported that Mr Kawen suffers from a longstanding medical condition which has persisted for several years without significant improvement. His reported health condition raises additional concerns regarding his vulnerability during questioning and his access to appropriate medical care. According to the family, Mr Kawen had not returned to his family home in Sorong by 9 November 2026.
Mr Kawen’s family has appealed to the Regent of Maybrat Regency, the Chairperson of the Maybrat Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD), the leadership of the Aifat Classis, church authorities, legal aid organisations and civil society groups to intervene. They have requested urgent attention to his situation, particularly his prolonged absence from the family home and his continuing health problems.
Legal analysis
The reported involvement of Navy personnel in questioning a civilian raises questions concerning the legal basis, necessity and proportionality of military intervention in a civilian matter. Under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a State party, every person has the right to liberty and security of person and must be protected against arbitrary arrest or detention. Article 9(1) requires any deprivation of liberty to be carried out on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law. If Mr Kawen was prevented from leaving the military post or otherwise placed under the effective control of military personnel without a lawful basis, such conduct could amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The circumstances also raise concerns regarding the protection of civilians from intimidation and coercion by security forces. Article 28G(1) of the Indonesian Constitution guarantees protection of personal security and freedom from threats of fear. The authorities should clarify the legal authority under which Navy personnel summoned Mr Kawen, the purpose of the questioning and whether any criminal allegations had been made against him. Any questioning or restriction of liberty must comply with applicable Indonesian law and international human rights standards, including safeguards against coercion and ill-treatment.
Period of incident: 27/10/2026 – 09/11/2026 Perpetrator: Republic Indonesia > Indonesian Security Forces > Indonesian Military (TNI) > Indonesian Navy (TNI-AL) Issues: indigenous peoples Related Cases:
2) BNPB seeks field checks of suspected fires in South Papua
November 10, 2026 12:24 GMT+700
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Indonesia's National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB) is calling for on-the-ground verification of suspected land clearing by fire in forest concession areas in South Papua.
BNPB Chief Kristomei Sianturi said the agency had coordinated with local governments, the military and police to inspect the affected areas.
The verification follows a November 4 letter from the forestry minister to the South Papua governor requesting clarification about land conditions in the province.
At a limited meeting on forest and land fire management at the Coordinating Ministry for Political and Security Affairs on Monday, BNPB presented preliminary hotspot data for concessions held by PT Merauke Sarjaya and PT Selaras Inti Semesta.
"The data still require field verification to establish the actual conditions and determine follow-up measures within each agency's authority," Kristomei said.
He said BNPB was also encouraging ministries and government agencies to integrate their data to improve the accuracy of the national forest and land fire monitoring system.
Information on forestry permits, cultivation rights (HGU), plantations and mining concessions is needed to supplement the agency's existing records.
"We need data from relevant ministries and agencies on forestry permits, HGU, plantations and mining. More complete and accurate information would enable this system to serve as an early-warning tool to prevent fires," he said.
Strengthening the monitoring system is essential as forest and land fires continue to affect several parts of Indonesia.
BNPB's Geographic Information System and NASA's Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) recorded 2,529 hotspots and 976 fire detections as of 6 p.m. on Nov. 8. Burned area totaled 5,335 hectares, with 1,925 hectares still burning.
Central Kalimantan recorded the highest number of hotspots, with 443, followed by South Papua with 427 and Southeast Sulawesi with 279.
In terms of burned area, Central Kalimantan recorded 1,098 hectares, followed by South Papua with 830 hectares and Southeast Sulawesi with 566 hectares.
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN WEST PAPUA: CONFLICT AND THE INSISTENCE OF PEACE
(Human Rights Situation Report January-September 2026)
Political Civil Rights Violations Indonesian military in West Papua ULMWP Union Reconciliation Meeting The Voice of Pacific Leaders Response of the Papuan Nation and the Government of Indonesia
1) Police charge three Papuan students with treason after Morning Star flag-raising at Jayapura university
9 November 2026 / 10 minutes of reading
On 30 September 2026, Indonesian police arrested four Papuan students during the dispersal of a demonstration at the University of Science and Technology Jayapura (USTJ) campus in Padang Bulan, Abepura District, Jayapura City, Papua province. The protest, which began at approximately 9.00 am, commemorated the 64th anniversary of the so-called Rome Agreement and included the raising of the Morning Star flag, a symbol of Papuan political identity and aspirations for independence. Police reportedly used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters following a confrontation over the removal of the flag. Police took four students, identified as Inios Enembe, Apniel Yagani (also reported as Jagani), Mikael Obaipa, and Frengky Salak (also reported as Fangky Salak), to Jayapura City Police Headquarters (Polresta Jayapura Kota). On 1 October 2026, police designated Enembe, Yagani and Obaipa as criminal suspects under Articles 192 and 234 of Indonesia’s new Criminal Code (KUHP), exposing them to potentially severe criminal penalties, including life imprisonment or the death penalty under Article 192. Salak was subsequently released without charge. The incident raises serious concerns regarding freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the use of national security legislation against peaceful political dissent in West Papua. The students’ ages have not been established.
According to information published by local human rights and media organisations, the demonstration took place on the USTJ campus as students gathered to discuss the historical and political implications of the 1962 agreements concerning West Papua. Participants reportedly expressed concerns about the rights of Indigenous Papuans, called for stronger human rights protections and demanded the withdrawal of non-organic military personnel from West Papua. During the demonstration, students raised the Morning Star flag on a flagpole in the university grounds. Jayapura City Police Chief Senior Commissioner Fredrickus Maclarimboen subsequently arrived with police officers to have the flag removed. The attempt to lower the flag triggered protests among students and a confrontation with security personnel. According to the police chief, officers had attempted to negotiate with protesters before stones were thrown at police personnel. He stated that police responded with tear gas and water cannon to push back the crowd. These allegations concerning stone-throwing have not been independently verified, and the available information does not establish whether any of the four arrested students personally engaged in violence. The Catholic human rights organisation JPIC OFM Papua separately reported that officers from Jayapura City Police and the Papua Regional Police Mobile Brigade (Brimob) deployed tear gas inside the campus grounds.
During the police operation, officers arrested Inios Enembe, Apniel Yagani, Mikael Obaipa and Frengky Salak and transferred them to Jayapura City Police Headquarters for questioning. A legal assistance update dated 1 October 2026 indicated that questioning took place from approximately 7.00 pm until 12.06 am, although the precise dates covered by that overnight session were not specified. All four students were reportedly accompanied by legal counsel. Their legal assistance team included Yustina Haluk, Apilus Menufandu, Persila Heselo and Fredi Wamu. Police subsequently conducted a case assessment to determine each student’s legal status.
On 1 October 2026, investigators formally designated Apniel Yagani, Inios Enembe and Mikael Obaipa as criminal suspects. According to Reinhart Kmur, a lawyer representing the Papua Coalition for Law Enforcement and Human Rights, the three underwent further formal questioning between 3.00 pm and 9.20 pm that day. Their statements were recorded in official police investigation reports (Berita Acara Pemeriksaan, BAP). Investigators reportedly invoked Article 192 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on acts intended to separate part or all of Indonesia’s territory from the state, along with Article 234 on desecrating or dishonouring the Indonesian national flag. The fourth student, identified in the legal assistance update as Frengky Salak and in a subsequent media report as Fangky Salak, was questioned as a witness and released after police reportedly found no evidence of criminal conduct attributable to him. No verified information was available on the three suspects’ subsequent release, continued detention, indictment or trial status at the time of preparation of this report.
The arrests also generated a dispute between the university administration and the student representative body concerning the identity and academic status of the accused. In a statement reported on 6 October 2026, the USTJ Student Executive Board (Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa, BEM USTJ) rejected an earlier assertion by the university rector that the individuals involved in raising the Morning Star flag were not USTJ students. BEM Vice-President Luis Kitok Kasipka stated that all three accused were enrolled students and called upon the university administration to verify their status through official academic records rather than unsubstantiated allegations about external organisational involvement. According to the student body, Apniel Yagani was a third-semester Information Systems student, Inios Enembe was a fifth-semester Government Studies student who reportedly served as the demonstration’s field coordinator, and Mikael Obaipa was a fifth-semester International Relations student who reportedly acted as the person responsible for the protest. BEM USTJ also denied that it had agreed with the rector’s position, stating that no prior consultation or formal agreement had taken place.
The student representatives emphasised that universities should provide an environment in which students can examine contested historical narratives, express political opinions and engage in critical debate without intimidation or stigmatisation. They urged the university administration to engage constructively with students, clarify the disputed statements and coordinate with law enforcement authorities to ensure the protection and fair treatment of those facing criminal proceedings. The disagreement over the students’ enrolment status is particularly relevant to concerns about academic freedom and the protection of political expression on university campuses.
Human rights analysis
Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
The criminal investigation against the three students raises substantial concerns under Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Indonesia ratified through Law No. 12 of 2005. Article 19 protects the right to express political opinions, including views that challenge government policies, constitutional arrangements and prevailing interpretations of history. Article 21 guarantees the right of peaceful assembly, subject only to restrictions prescribed by law that are necessary and proportionate to legitimate public interests. These guarantees extend to political demonstrations organised in educational institutions, including those addressing controversial questions of territorial status and self-determination.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 37 (2020), explicitly recognises that the use of flags, banners and other symbols generally constitutes a legitimate form of expression. Paragraph 51 provides that such expressions should ordinarily remain protected even where symbols evoke a painful or controversial historical past. Restrictions may be justified in exceptional circumstances involving symbols directly and predominantly associated with incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Moreover, paragraph 49 clarifies that the right of peaceful assembly protects political opposition, challenges to governmental authority and the peaceful pursuit of self-determination. Consequently, displaying the Morning Star flag cannot, by itself, establish that participants engaged in violence or committed a legitimate national security offence.
Although police reported that stones were thrown during the confrontation, this allegation does not automatically deprive the entire demonstration of its peaceful character. Under paragraphs 17–19 of General Comment No. 37, isolated acts of violence by particular participants must not be attributed indiscriminately to all protesters or organisers. Criminal responsibility must be based on credible evidence of individual conduct. The available information does not establish that Enembe, Jagani or Obaipa personally engaged in violence, incited violent acts or directed others to attack police officers.
The reported use of tear gas and water cannon also requires scrutiny under international standards governing law enforcement during assemblies. Law enforcement officials must apply principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, precaution and non-discrimination. The authorities must establish whether dispersal was genuinely required, whether less intrusive measures were feasible and whether the use of potentially harmful crowd-control equipment was proportionate to any actual threat. The available reports do not establish the precise circumstances of the deployments, whether adequate warnings were given or whether any participants sustained injuries. These matters require independent investigation.
Application of treason and national security legislation
Article 192 of Law No. 1 of 2023 criminalises makar committed with the intention of bringing part or all of Indonesian territory under foreign control or separating territory from the Republic of Indonesia. The provision permits penalties ranging up to 20 years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment or death. Its application in connection with the raising of a political flag raises serious questions about the distinction between protected political expression and conduct that may legitimately be prosecuted as a national security offence.
Under international human rights law, the peaceful expression of support for independence, autonomy or constitutional change cannot automatically be equated with criminal conduct. The government may protect national security and territorial integrity through lawful and proportionate measures, but restrictions on political expression must satisfy the strict requirements of Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. A prosecution based primarily on the symbolic display of a flag, without credible evidence of criminal acts satisfying the statutory elements of the offence, would risk criminalising political opinion itself.
Article 234 of the Criminal Code concerns acts of damaging, tearing, trampling, burning or otherwise dishonouring the Indonesian national flag with the intention of desecrating, insulting or degrading its dignity. The available reports document the raising of the Morning Star flag but contain no substantiated allegation that the accused damaged or desecrated the Indonesian national flag. The evidentiary and legal basis for invoking Article 234 therefore remains unclear. Investigators should be required to identify the specific conduct attributed to each suspect and demonstrate how it satisfies the statutory elements of the alleged offence.
The severity of the penalties applicable under Article 192 is especially concerning in a case arising from a student demonstration. The authorities must ensure that criminal law is not used to impose disproportionate punishment for the peaceful expression of political beliefs. The possibility of a capital sentence also engages the protections of Article 6 of the ICCPR, which strictly limits the death penalty to the most serious crimes, understood by the Human Rights Committee as crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing. Applying a capital sentence to non-lethal political expression would be incompatible with that standard.
Arrest, detention and fair trial guarantees
Article 9 of the ICCPR protects individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention and requires that any deprivation of liberty be lawful, necessary and free from arbitrariness. Article 14 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, the presumption of innocence, adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and access to legal assistance. The reported presence of legal representatives during police questioning is an important procedural safeguard. Nevertheless, the initial grounds for the students’ arrest, the legal basis for any continued detention, and the extent of judicial oversight have not been established.
The designation of three students as suspects following a political protest must not be treated as evidence of guilt. Police and prosecutors must assess the available evidence individually and ensure that criminal proceedings are not driven by the students’ political opinions, their role in organising the demonstration or their association with symbols of Papuan identity. If the arrests or detention were based solely on protected expressive activity, they would raise serious concerns of arbitrariness under Article 9 of the ICCPR.
Academic freedom and the protection of political debate
The incident further raises concerns regarding academic freedom and the obligation of universities to safeguard an environment conducive to independent inquiry and political discussion. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) protects the right to education, while the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has identified academic freedom as an essential component of higher education. Indonesian Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education also recognises academic freedom and academic forum freedoms, subject to their applicable legal framework.
The disagreement between the university rector and student representatives demonstrates the need for transparent institutional procedures and independent verification of disputed facts. University administrators should refrain from publicly stigmatising students or attributing external political affiliations without reliable evidence. In cooperation with students and their legal representatives, the university should ensure that criminal proceedings do not result in unjustified restrictions on access to education, academic participation or lawful political expression.
Detailed Case Data Document ID: HRM-CAS-155-2026 Region: Indonesia > Papua > Jayapura > Abepura Total number of victims: 4
#
Number of Victims
Name, Details
Gender
Age
Group Affiliation
Violations
1.
1
Inios Enembe
male
unknown
Student
arbitrary detention, criminalisation, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression
2.
1
Apniel Yagani
male
unknown
Student
arbitrary detention, criminalisation, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression
3.
1
Mikael Obaipa
male
unknown
Student
arbitrary detention, criminalisation, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression
4.
1
Frengky Salak
male
unknown
Student
arbitrary detention, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression
Period of incident: 30/09/2026 – 01/10/2026 Perpetrator: Republic Indonesia > Indonesian Security Forces > Indonesian Police Issues: indigenous peoples Sources: Jubi
Indonesian Forum for the Environment Papua executive director, Maikel Primus Peuki, said birds have been struggling to find shelter after natural vegetation was cleared.
"I once saw a bird flying far and high - it became so exhausted that it fell and died," Mr Peuki told a Jubi podcast.
"At first, I thought someone had shot it, but there were simply no trees left for it to shelter in.
"Birds cannot nest in oil palms."
Mr Peuki said such incidents in South Papua province illustrated the differences between natural forests and oil palm plantationsdespite both plants having leaves and producing oxygen.
He said replacing diverse forests with monoculture plantations reduces the variety of habitats available to Papuan wildlife.
"Imagine birds flying long distances becoming exhausted and falling dead," Mr Peuki said.
"It is a distressing reality because those birds know where their homes are."
Mr Peuki highlighted the role Indigenous knowledge of Papuans play in maintaining an ecological balance, including seasonal calendars which guide communities on when to also hunt wild pigs.
Both Papuan cultural traditions and ecological knowledge have been passed down for generations.
Dr Ignasius Ngari, a lecturer in environmental studies at a prominent Catholic education institution, said animals instinctively relied on habitats and could struggle when those environments disappeared.
"When their habitats are replaced by monoculture crops such as oil palm, they must find new homes, which requires time and adaptation," he said.
"Otherwise, they may disappear and die."
Dr Ngari also said birds play an important role in Indigenous Papuan knowledge systems, with their calls and behaviour used to interpret environmental changes and anticipate potential dangers.
Communities in the Cendrawasih Bay region of West Papua, including Yapen and Biak islands, have traditionally interpreted certain bird calls as warnings of impending natural disasters.
In Yanggu Baru village located in the Jayapura regency, residents associate the bird calls with events in their daily lives.
Dr Ngari added this relationship between people, animals and plants was also reflected in the concept of totemism, in which a species or natural elements represent the identity, ancestry and spiritual connections of a clan or a community.
Several Marind clans in the South Papua province maintain spiritual relationships with plant and animal totems, which are connected to Dema ancestral spirits.
Marthen Waisimon, a former village head, said a bird known locally in the Nimboran language as Yasu was believed to signal the arrival of visitors when it sang in the morning.
"Elders have long taught us that when the bird sings in the morning, visitors will arrive later that day," he said.
Mr Waisimon also said generations of traditional knowledge had taught residents to interpret other bird calls as signs of events, including natural disasters and impending deaths.
"We always protect our forests and trees because these birds are important to us and are our companions," he said.
"We must protect the forests and trees because they are the birds' homes, where they build their nests."
3) Papua committee reports 124,000 displaced, 59 killed in 2026
The Papua Special Committee of Indonesia’s Regional Representatives Council (DPD RI) reported to the council’s 3rd Plenary Session of the 2026–2027 Legislative Year that around 124,000 Papuans remain internally displaced by armed conflict and 59 people have been killed this year (see photo on top). The committee concluded that civilians have borne the brunt of the violence, with daily life, schooling and healthcare disrupted across conflict-affected districts in West Papua.
The displaced are concentrated in South-West Papua and Central Papua, the committee found, and most have not received adequate assistance. Its estimate, drawn from religious and traditional leaders and local communities, sits close to independent counts. Human Rights Monitor recorded more than 127,000 by late August 2026, a figure Christian Solidarity International raised at the UN Human Rights Council on 1 October. It far exceeds the 22,000–22,661 that local authorities cited to the committee in Timika on 17 September, a gap that led the committee to call for a single verified displacement database pooling government, church, customary and humanitarian data.
Of the 59 people killed in 2026, 43 were civilians, and around 50 more have been injured. The figures match Komnas HAM data presented in Timika, which counted 42 violent incidents in the first half of the year, with eight police and soldiers and eight members of armed groups among the dead alongside the civilians. The committee also reported that residents now face routine identity checks and must carry identification for everyday activities. While West Papua has not been declared a military operations zone, the heavy security force presence disrupts people’s ability to meet basic needs.
The conflict has hollowed out basic services. Teachers and health workers have withdrawn from a number of affected areas, leaving schools unable to run normal classes and clinics unable to function properly. Displaced parents in Puncak told committee chair Yorrys Raweyai in August that their children could not get an education and that families could not return home because the situation had not calmed. The committee has argued that returns must be safe, voluntary and dignified, and preceded by restored schools, clinics, housing and security; otherwise, deputy chair Filep Wamafma warned, displacement will simply recur.
The findings come after months of field visits and mounting pressure on Jakarta. Set up in July as violence escalated, the committee has pressed the government for a national evaluation of its Papua strategy and a roadmap with deadlines and accountability. It has also urged President Prabowo Subianto to form an investigation, reconciliation or dialogue team. Komnas HAM’s Papua has backed the committee and said dialogue involving the government, the Free Papua Organisation and community leaders is the only route to a settlement. Pacific leaders at the UN General Assembly and church leaders in Papua have meanwhile called on Indonesia to admit the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Jakarta rejects the criticism and blames armed Papuan groups for the displacement.
The committee will now examine two issues in greater depth: human rights violations in Papua Highlands Province, and the impact of investment on communities and humanitarian conditions in South Papua and Papua provinces, where large food and energy projects have drawn growing local opposition. According to the committee, the deeper inquiry is needed so that the DPD can produce more comprehensive recommendations and promote a peaceful and dignified resolution of the West Papua conflict, with the protection of civilians as the first priority.
