Andrie Yunus was riding a motorbike in Jakarta on March 12 when two men on another motorbike attacked him with acid, leaving him partially blind and with burns over more than 20 percent of his face and body. Four serving soldiers have gone on trial in a military court, prosecutors say the suspects are tied to the military's Strategic Intelligence Agency and have been charged with premeditated assault, a crime that carries up to 12 years in prison. The case has drawn UN condemnation and sharpened international and domestic concern about the military's growing role in government, and the resignation of the intelligence agency chief has intensified scrutiny of Indonesia's civil-military relations and its handling of human rights cases.

What happened

The attack took place on March 12 in Jakarta. Andrie Yunus, 27, was riding a motorbike when two men on another motorbike attacked him, prosecutors said. Mohammad Iswadi, a military prosecutor, told the court Yunus lost sight in one eye and suffered burns on more than 20 percent of his face and body.

The four accused are serving soldiers. Prosecutors say they're linked to the military’s Strategic Intelligence Agency. They have been charged with premeditated assault. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 12 years behind bars.

The trial opened in a military court on Wednesday. The case has drawn both national headlines and international attention.

Who is accused and what authorities say

Prosecutors have alleged the suspects acted out of anger over Yunus’s public campaigning.

But court filings say the men were not following official orders. This Strategic Intelligence Agency later announced the resignation of its chief.

Officials gave no public reason for that departure.

The defendants are being tried under military law. That choice has drawn concern from rights groups. Amnesty International’s regional researcher Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong said the use of military courts makes people wonder about the fairness of the process and risks weakening accountability.

Why Yunus was targeted, according to prosecutors

Yunus works with the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence. He has been outspoken against an amendment passed last year that widens the types of government posts active-duty military personnel can hold. Prosecutors pointed to Yunus’s activism as a motive.

Days before the amendment passed, Yunus disrupted a closed-door parliamentary meeting about the change. He shouted objections and was forcibly removed, the court heard. At the time of the attack he had recorded a podcast criticizing what he called the "militarisation" of government under President Prabowo Subianto, a former general.

Domestic reaction and international condemnation

The United Nations publicly condemned the attack. Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called it a "cowardly act of violence". Mary Lawlor, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, described the assault as "horrific". Those statements show international human rights bodies have taken a direct interest in the case.

Mastheads

Within Indonesia, the incident feeds into a wider debate about the military's expanding role in civilian institutions. Analysts say the attack fits a pattern of repression linked to rising military influence. Rights groups warn the trial’s venue could affect how witnesses give testimony and how evidence is handled.

Last year’s amendment broadened the range of government roles open to active-duty military personnel. It included positions in the attorney general’s office and agencies that handle disaster management and counterterrorism. Critics have said the change blurs the line between civilian and military authority.

Yunus’s public protests and his podcast placed him at the center of that debate. Prosecutors say the suspects’ anger over his activism explains the attack. The case therefore connects a violent incident to a broader dispute over where military power should end and civilian control should begin.

The trial has political consequences inside Indonesia. It has intensified public scrutiny of the armed forces.

That scrutiny may affect how political actors argue about the amendment and similar policy moves. Lawmakers and voters will be watching the court’s handling of the case.

Internationally, the trial has added to attention from human rights bodies. The UN statements mean the case will be part of how outside governments and international institutions evaluate Jakarta’s record on rights and rule of law. That evaluation already shaped diplomatic discussions before the attack. Now the episode provides a concrete incident to cite in those talks.

Observers also point to economic angles. Investor confidence often rests on perceptions of political stability and rule of law. Cases that highlight concerns about impunity or weakening civilian institutions can affect investor assessments. And those assessments matter for foreign direct investment and for companies weighing operations in Indonesia.

For the United States, ties with Jakarta include security cooperation and trade. The US also emphasizes human rights in its diplomatic agenda.

The UN condemnation and the high-profile nature of the trial mean the episode is likely to appear in diplomatic briefings and congressional oversight. That may shape the tone and content of future discussions between US officials and Indonesian counterparts.

Rights groups say one core issue is whether the full scope of the attack will be investigated. Military jurisdiction over serving soldiers raises procedural questions. Those include access for civilian prosecutors and the independence of investigators. Amnesty International warned that trying the case in a military court could weaken transparency and create obstacles to a fair trial.

Prosecutors have so far framed the case as criminal at the individual level. They have argued the suspects were not following orders. If the court accepts that framing, it limits the legal inquiry to the acts of the accused soldiers. If investigators uncover broader links or directives, the legal focus could expand. The court has yet to rule on those points.

The case has energized rights activists and non-governmental organizations. It has also pushed the issue of military influence into public debate. Protesters and civil society groups are likely to use the trial’s proceedings to press for stronger protections for activists and for clearer boundaries between military and civilian roles.

Yunus’s profile as a critic of the amendment has made him a focal point. His work with victims and missing persons gives his case wider resonance in human rights networks. How the state and the military handle the trial will shape civil society’s trust in legal institutions.

The trial began on Wednesday and will proceed through the military court system. Prosecutors will present evidence and witness testimony.

Defense lawyers will respond. The court will then issue a judgment under military criminal law.

The investigation and trial process will determine whether the case remains framed as isolated conduct by individuals or whether it points to institutional practices. That determination will have implications for accountability mechanisms inside Indonesia.

Related Articles

Prosecutors have charged the four soldiers with premeditated assault, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 12 years in prison.

This article was created with AI assistance.