Reopening Munir’s Murder Case

THE failure of law enforcement agencies to uncover the mastermind behind Munir Said Thalib’s death suggests that his murder was carried out through a meticulous and serious operation, compounded by a blatant lack of political commitment. Two decades after his death on September 7, 2004, the state still has not found the mastermind behind the crime.

The National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) has sought to reopen the investigation into his death. It has summoned witnesses to revisit the killing, which occurred around the time of Indonesia’s 2004 presidential election, as well as those who previously stood trial. Criminal courts convicted only Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto, a Garuda Indonesia co-pilot, as the executor.

Pollycarpus’s final sentence was 14 years in prison. With various sentence reductions and remissions, he served only eight years. He was released in 2018 and died two years later at the age of 59 after contracting Covid-19.

From the standpoint of criminal law, the investigation into Munir’s death has formally concluded. The Criminal Code deems the case time-barred after 18 years. It stipulates that criminal cases expire after 18 years for sentences of seven to 15 years, and after 20 years for cases carrying sentences of 20 years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty. Komnas HAM formed an ad hoc team to investigate Munir’s death before the statute of limitations expired on September 7, 2022.

To bring the case back to court, investigators must find novum, or new evidence, so the probe is not deemed repetitive under the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy). Komnas HAM is working to uncover such evidence, even as political hands attempt to block the effort, as reported in this week’s cover story.

The novum matters not only to reopen the investigation without violating ne bis in idem. More importantly, the evidence could lead to the conclusion that the case constitutes a gross human rights violation.

Munir was brutally murdered with arsenic poison on a flight bound for Amsterdam. He was on his way to pursue a master’s degree in law at Utrecht University. Pollycarpus administered the arsenic while chatting with Munir during a transit stop at Changi Airport in Singapore. Police investigations and a fact-finding team formed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono traced communications between the executors and senior officials at the State Intelligence Agency (BIN).

Munir was killed at a time when Indonesian politics was inflamed by the rivalry in the second round of the presidential election, held on September 20, 2004. The incumbent, Megawati Soekarnoputri, paired with Nahdlatul Ulama Chair Hasyim Muzadi, faced Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla.

Yudhoyono was once Megawati’s subordinate in the government. The General Chair of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) dismissed him after he founded the Democrat Party as a vehicle for his presidential bid. That dramatic rupture went on to define the cool relationship between Megawati and Yudhoyono to this day. At the time, BIN was headed by A.M. Hendropriyono.

Munir’s murder could have effectively eroded the electability of Yudhoyono, a retired general surrounded by fellow generals as part of his campaign team, an institution Munir had long criticized while leading the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence. Yet the Dutch government did not release the autopsy results until after the election. Yudhoyono won with 60 percent of the vote.

This political backdrop was never examined as context for Munir’s death. Yet if a political motive in the premeditated killing were established, it could serve as an initial indicator that Munir’s murder constituted a gross human rights violation: the involvement of state structures and institutions in taking a life.

Indonesia’s Human Rights Law recognizes only two forms of killing as gross human rights violations: genocide and crimes against humanity—not the murder of one individual by another. The problem is that in criminal court, prosecutors failed to prove the involvement of Muchdi Purwopranjono, then BIN Deputy Chief for Mobilization.

Komnas HAM’s task now is to find novum and formulate legally recognized evidence that Munir’s murder qualifies as a crime against humanity. Uncovering the mastermind behind Munir’s killing is an effort to keep alive the memory of crimes committed by state actors.

Whatever the motive—whether political rivalry or irritation over Munir’s activism—his elimination was a grave crime. He was a fearless activist who persistently reminded the state of its duty to protect the human rights of every individual.