2) Fiji advocacy group slams Indonesian role in MSG as a ‘disgrace’
3) Constitutional Court Ruling on ITE Law: A victory for freedom of expression amid ongoing concerns
4) Arbitrary detention and trial against Peni Pekei: Case emblematic of systemic criminalisation of Papuans
5) Ongoing detention of four activists in Sorong raises concerns over criminalisation, health, and due processFormularbeginn
----------------------------------
1) Indonesia ready to deepen partnership with MSG
June 25, 2025 21:01 GMT+700
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Indonesia is ready to enhance cooperation in strategic sectors with Pacific nations under the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), Deputy Foreign Minister Arrmanatha Nasir has said.
“Indonesia is ready to deepen partnerships with MSG countries in promoting tangible economic cooperation, from the ocean to the market, and from grassroots to the global level,” he added during the 23rd MSG Leaders’ Summit in Suva, Fiji, on Monday.
According to a written statement released by the ministry here on Wednesday, at the summit, Nasir conveyed Indonesia’s proposal to strengthen collaboration in five strategic areas, including sustainable blue economy and environmental resilience.
The areas further include defense, health and human capital development, as well as infrastructure development in the region.
In addition, Indonesia will expand scholarship opportunities across undergraduate, postgraduate, and health vocational programs for students from Pacific nations.
Nasir reaffirmed that Indonesia is committed to supporting the MSG Roadmap for Sustainable Coastal Fisheries through advanced training sessions scheduled for later this year.
“Indonesia remains committed to supporting the implementation of the 2050 Blue Pacific Continent Strategy, including through financial contributions to the Pacific Resilience Facility,” he said.
He underscored the importance of enhancing cooperation because MSG members hold strategic positions amid increasing external interests that could influence regional dynamics.
“MSG member countries represent 86 percent of the Pacific Islands’ population, 98 percent of its GDP (gross domestic product), and nearly half of its exclusive economic zones,” he noted, referring to an earlier statement by Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat.
He also reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to advancing development in the Pacific region through productive collaboration to mark its 10th year as an associated member of MSG.
“With 13 million Melanesians across nine of our 38 provinces, Indonesia is not just a partner but also a part of the MSG family,” he said.
“Indonesia is ready to deepen partnerships with MSG countries in promoting tangible economic cooperation, from the ocean to the market, and from grassroots to the global level,” he added during the 23rd MSG Leaders’ Summit in Suva, Fiji, on Monday.
According to a written statement released by the ministry here on Wednesday, at the summit, Nasir conveyed Indonesia’s proposal to strengthen collaboration in five strategic areas, including sustainable blue economy and environmental resilience.
The areas further include defense, health and human capital development, as well as infrastructure development in the region.
In addition, Indonesia will expand scholarship opportunities across undergraduate, postgraduate, and health vocational programs for students from Pacific nations.
Nasir reaffirmed that Indonesia is committed to supporting the MSG Roadmap for Sustainable Coastal Fisheries through advanced training sessions scheduled for later this year.
“Indonesia remains committed to supporting the implementation of the 2050 Blue Pacific Continent Strategy, including through financial contributions to the Pacific Resilience Facility,” he said.
He underscored the importance of enhancing cooperation because MSG members hold strategic positions amid increasing external interests that could influence regional dynamics.
“MSG member countries represent 86 percent of the Pacific Islands’ population, 98 percent of its GDP (gross domestic product), and nearly half of its exclusive economic zones,” he noted, referring to an earlier statement by Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat.
He also reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to advancing development in the Pacific region through productive collaboration to mark its 10th year as an associated member of MSG.
“With 13 million Melanesians across nine of our 38 provinces, Indonesia is not just a partner but also a part of the MSG family,” he said.
Translator: Nabil, Kenzu
Editor: Aditya Eko Sigit Wicaksono
—————————————————————————
2) Fiji advocacy group slams Indonesian role in MSG as a ‘disgrace’
By APR editor - June 25, 2025
Asia Pacific Report
A Fiji-based advocacy group has condemned the participation of Indonesia in the Melanesian Spearhead Group which is meeting in Suva this week, saying it is a “profound disgrace” that the Indonesian Embassy continues to “operate freely” within the the MSG Secretariat.
“This presence blatantly undermines the core principles of justice and solidarity we claim to uphold as Melanesians,” said We Bleed Black and Red in a social media post.
The group said that as the new MSG chair, the Fiji government could not speak cannot credibly about equity, peace, regional unity, or the Melanesian family “while the very agent of prolonged Melanesian oppression sits at the decision-making table”.
- READ MORE: New era for MSG as Fiji assumes leadership role
- Pro-independence advocates urge MSG to elevate West Papua membership
- Other West Papua reports
The statement said that for more than six decades, the people of West Papua had endured “systemic atrocities from mass killings to environmental devastation — acts that clearly constitute ecocide and gross human rights violations”.
“Indonesia’s track record is not only morally indefensible but also a flagrant breach of numerous international agreements and conventions,” the group said.
“It is time for all Melanesian nations to confront the reality behind the diplomatic facades and development aid.
“No amount of financial incentives or diplomatic charm can erase the undeniable suffering of the West Papuan people.
“We must rise above political appeasement and fulfill our moral and regional duty as one Melanesian family.
“The Pacific cannot claim moral leadership while turning a blind eye and deaf ear to colonial violence on our own shores. Justice delayed is justice denied.”
‘Peaceful, prosperous Melanesia’
Meanwhile, The Fiji Times reports that the 23rd MSG Leaders’ Summit got underway on Monday in Suva, drawing heads of state from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and representatives from New Caledonia’s FLNKS.
Hosted under the theme “A Peaceful and Prosperous Melanesia,” the summit ended yesterday.
This year’s meeting also marked Fiji’s first time chairing the regional bloc since 1997.
Fiji officially assumed the MSG chairmanship from Vanuatu following a traditional handover ceremony attended by senior officials, observers, and dignitaries at Draiba.
Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape arrived in Suva on Sunday and reaffirmed Papua New Guinea’s commitment to MSG cooperation during today’s plenary session.
He will also take part in high-level talanoa discussions with the Pacific Islands Forum’s Eminent Persons Group, aimed at deepening institutional reform and regional solidarity.
Observers from the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and Indonesia were also present, reflecting ongoing efforts to expand the bloc’s influence on issues like self-determination, regional trade, security, and climate resilience in the Pacific.
————————————————
Human Rights Monitor
3) Constitutional Court Ruling on ITE Law: A victory for freedom of expression amid ongoing concerns
Indonesia’s controversial Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law has long been criticized by human rights advocates as a tool for silencing dissent and criminalizing free speech. Initially enacted in 2008 and revised multiple times, the law’s vague provisions on defamation and hate speech have been weaponized against activists, journalists, environmental defenders, and ordinary citizens who criticize those in power. With over 500 people reported under its problematic provisions between 2013-2022 alone, the ITE Law has become synonymous with digital authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic discourse in Indonesia. A recent Constitutional Court ruling offers both hope and caution for the future of free expression in the world’s third-largest democracy.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling on 2 May 2025 represents a crucial advancement for freedom of expression in Indonesia. The ruling stipulates that government agencies, corporations, groups, institutions, or officials cannot file defamation reports under the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. The Court ruled that only individuals can be victims of defamation, explicitly recognizing that in a democratic society, criticism of government policies serves as essential public oversight and must be protected to prevent abuse of power. This decision emerged from a judicial review petition by environmental activist Daniel Frits Maurits Tangkilisan, who was sentenced to seven months in prison for social media criticism of environmental damage in Karimunjawa.
The ruling provides important clarifications to previously vague provisions that enabled widespread criminalization. The Court interpreted the ambiguous phrase “a matter” to specifically mean “an act that degrades the honour or reputation of a person,” distinguishing defamation from ordinary insults. For hate speech provisions, the Court established stricter limitations requiring that prohibited content must “substantively contain acts/dissemination of hatred based on certain identities that are committed intentionally and in public, which pose a real risk of discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Court also retained the “without right” provision to protect legitimate activities by media, researchers, and law enforcement officials.
Human rights observers remain skeptical about the ruling’s practical impact on ending criminalization. SAFEnet Executive Director, Nenden Sekar Arum, noted that most defamation reports are filed by individuals rather than government agencies, meaning officials can still report in their personal capacity. From 2013-2022, at least 500 people were reported under problematic ITE provisions, with 146 cases in 2024 alone affecting 170 individuals. The data shows the law continues to be used for strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), particularly targeting activists, human rights defenders, and environmental advocates. While the ruling provides stronger interpretative frameworks and prohibits institutional reporting, significant loopholes remain that allow continued criminalization of critical voices, suggesting that more comprehensive reform is needed to fully protect freedom of expression and human rights defenders in Indonesia.
Most consequential changes
| # | Constitutional Court (MK) clarification | Immediate effect on ITE-Law practice |
| 1 | Only natural persons can be “victims” of defamation (Art. 27A & 45(4)). State bodies, SOEs, private companies, public institutions, professions, or “positions” (jabatan) may no longer lodge criminal complaints. | • Cuts off the main route for institutional Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). • Restores a measure of democratic oversight by protecting criticism of government policies and corporate conduct. |
| 2 | “A matter” must be read as “an act that degrades a person’s honour or reputation.” | • Narrows an otherwise catch-all clause that blurred insults, defamation, and criticism, improving legal certainty. |
| 3 | “Without right” (Art. 28(2) & 45A(2)) retained, but re-defined. It refers only to whomay lawfully distribute content, not to whether hate speech is justified. | • Preserves a defence for journalists, researchers, and officials acting in bona fide public interest. • Still leaves prosecutors broad discretion. |
| 4 | Hate-speech threshold tightened. Only content that intentionally, publicly, and substantially incites discrimination, hostility, or violence against protected groups is criminal. | • Helps protect legitimate dissent and historical discussion. • Requires police and courts to show a “real risk” test before charging. |
Key human-rights implications
- Partial shield against SLAPPs, not a ban on criminal defamation.
Institutional complainants are barred, but individuals—including public officials acting “privately”—may still invoke Articles 27A & 28(2). Experience shows they do so frequently, so the chilling effect on activists, environmental defenders, and journalists is likely to persist. - Criminal penalties remain severe (up to two years for defamation, six years for hate speech).
This keeps Indonesia out of step with international standards—Human Rights Committee General Comment 34 and the 2012 UN Joint Declaration, which urge states to decriminalise defamation or make imprisonment impermissible. - Vagueness not fully cured.
Although “a matter” and “without right” were interpreted more narrowly, other elastic terms (“hate”, “hostility”, “influence”) survive. Continued broad police discretion risks selective enforcement and forum shopping. - Implementation is decisive.
The National Police have pledged to “adapt”, but past practice (e.g., 146 freedom-of-expression cases in 2024) suggests consistent training, prosecution guidelines, and judicial oversight are essential. Monitoring by Komnas HAM and civil-society watchdogs remains critical. - Bridge to the new Criminal Code (KUHP) 2026.
The Court framed its ruling as a stop-gap until the KUHP takes effect. Advocates should use this window to press lawmakers to bring the KUHP fully into line with ICCPR Art. 19 & 20, CAT Art. 16, and ASEAN Human Rights Declaration Art. 23.
———————————————————————————
Human Rights Monitor
4) Arbitrary detention and trial against Peni Pekei: Case emblematic of systemic criminalisation of Papuans
On 17 May 2024, Mr Peni Pekei was arrested by the Damai Cartenz Task Force and the Dogiyai Police in Paniai Timur District, Papua Tengah Province (see photo on top, source: independent HRD). The police accused him of holding the position of Operations Commander in a pro-independence guerrilla group and charged him with extortion, violent theft, threats, and unlawful possession of a firearm during an incident that allegedly took place in Yatamo District in January 2015.
Authorities claimed Mr Pekei had been listed as a wanted person (DPO) since 11 November 2016. Following his arrest, he was transported overnight to Nabire, where he spent one night in police detention before being transferred to the Papua Police Headquarters in Jayapura on 18 May 2024. He remained in custody for four months before being relocated on 12 September 2024 to Nabire Class IIB Correctional Facility, where he spent another six months in detention. In total, Mr Pekei stayed a full year in detention.
In addition, the judicial process against him was characterised by serious procedural flaws. Although his trial began in November 2024 at the Nabire District Court, proceedings were delayed 10 times, and no substantial evidence was presented during the hearing to justify the charges. He was ultimately released from prison on 21 May 2025, after serving one year without a conviction.
The West Papua Army (WPA), represented by Mr Otto Jimmi Magai Yogi, vehemently denied all allegations against Mr Pekei, asserting that he had never been involved in any act of violence. Mr Yogi claimed that the criminal acts referenced by police had been committed by himself and two other commanders, Mr Damianus Magai Yogi and Mr Aloysius Kayame. The firearm allegedly used had also been handed over to the authorities. Mr Yogi further contested the validity of the DPO status, stating that Mr Pekei’s name was added to the wanted list only after his arrest, a move that raises serious concerns about the legality and transparency of the police’s actions.
Pattern of systematic criminalisation
This case exemplifies a broader pattern of systemic criminalisation of Indigenous Papuans, particularly individuals accused of association with the TPNPB or the Papuan independence movement. The absence of credible evidence, the retrospective justification of the arrest, and the prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial oversight are all indicative of violations of Mr Pekei’s right to liberty and security of person as enshrined in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Furthermore, the procedural delays and repeated postponements of his trial breached the right to be tried without undue delay (Article 14(3)(c), ICCPR) and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal (Article 14(1)).
The case of Peni Pekei underscores the urgent need for a review of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to end the arbitrary use of anti-terrorism and public security justifications to detain indigenous Papuans without due process. His year-long detention without conviction, despite the lack of substantiated evidence, constitutes a de facto punishment without trial, incompatible with both national constitutional guarantees and Indonesia’s international human rights obligations
———————————————
Human Rights Monitor
5) Ongoing detention of four activists in Sorong raises concerns over criminalisation, health, and due processFormularbeginn
The four Papuan political activists, Mr Nikson May, 56, Mr Maksi Sangkek, 39, Mr Abraham Goram Gaman, 55, and Mr Piter Robaha, 54, have been held at Sorong City Police Headquarters since 28 April 2025 on charges of treason (makar) and violations of Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. The charges stem from their peaceful action on 14 April 2025, when they delivered political letters to government institutions in Sorong, representing the aspirations of the political group Federal State of West Papua (NFRPB). The activists are accused of spreading separatist content and hate speech. They face charges under Articles 106, 87, and 53(1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Articles 28(2) and 45A(2) of the ITE Law. as well as Articles 55(1)(1) and/or 56(1)(1) KUHP on complicity.
The four were arrested on 28 April 2025, following an extensive police operation, including searches and the seizure of NFRPB materials and alternative uniforms. The Sorong Police stated that the suspects held strategic positions in the NFRPB and had submitted a letter to President Prabowo Subianto. While the police argue these acts amount to rebellion, the detainees’ lawyers contend that they fall under the category of peaceful political expression, protected by Article 28E of the Indonesian Constitution and international human rights standards.
Chronology of events and legal proceedings
On 14 April 2025, the activists delivered political documents to various local government offices in Sorong, including the Governor’s Office, Sorong City Hall, and the police. Two weeks later, on 28 April, all four were arrested and charged with treason. A subsequent raid on 30 April, involving over 100 police officers, led to further confiscations. On 5 May, the Sorong Police announced the charges publicly and claimed possession of evidence linking the activists to separatist intentions.
Legal counsel, Mr Yan Christian Warinussy, a human rights lawyer, visited the detainees on 17 May 2025 (see photo on top, source: LP3BH Manokwari). He affirmed the legal team’s commitment to ensuring due process and protecting the rights of the accused, including preparations for a potential suspension of detention and the demand for transparent prosecution procedures.
By 19 June 2025, reports emerged of severely deteriorating conditions. According to family members, the detainees were being held in overcrowded, unsanitary cells shared with more than 30 other inmates. The health of Mr Maksi Sangkek and Mr Abraham Goram Gaman, both of whom suffer from chronic lung diseases, has worsened due to cigarette smoke exposure and lack of medical care. Despite undergoing medical checks at the Bintang Timur Clinic on 16 June 2025, their families’ request for home care was denied. Authorities instead moved Mr Sangkek to a poorly ventilated office space, further aggravating his respiratory condition.
Legal and human rights analysis
The arrests and subsequent prosecution of the four political activists constitute a breach of freedom of expression and assembly, protected under both Indonesia’s Constitution (Article 28E) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Indonesia in 2006. The use of treason charges against peaceful political expression and the invocation of the ITE Law’s hate speech provisions are increasingly viewed by legal experts and human rights advocates as tools of political repression.
Moreover, the conditions of detention, including overcrowding, lack of access to adequate healthcare, and denial of culturally appropriate traditional treatment, violate the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), particularly Rules 24–27, which guarantee timely access to healthcare and treatment suited to individual needs.
The continued detention, especially of individuals with pre-existing health conditions, raises concerns about inhumane and degrading treatment under Article 7 of the ICCPR and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rejection of family-proposed bail with collateral appears arbitrary and disproportionate, further undermining the principle of presumption of innocence.
——————————————
