Decision Pending in Judicial Review of Andrie Yunus Acid Attack Investigation

A judicial review decision concerning the investigation into the acid attack on Andrie Yunus was set to be delivered on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at the South Jakarta District Court. The case revolves around a praperadilan (pre-trial) motion filed by Yunus's legal team, challenging the police's handling of the investigation.

“

With the conclusion of the examination regarding this case, we have scheduled the reading of the decision for June 2.

The legal team, part of the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD), is seeking to compel the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya) to resume the investigation. They argue that the police's decision to halt the inquiry was unlawful and that the case has suffered from undue delay. Initially, two reports were filed regarding the assault on Yunus. TAUD had submitted a Model B report to the National Police's Criminal Investigation Unit (Bareskrim Polri), but the case was subsequently transferred to Polda Metro Jaya.

“

From the letter submitted by the police, it turns out that there was never an official notification that the Model A report for Andrie Yunus's case had been stopped. So the examination process within the police was still ongoing.

TAUD claims that Polda Metro Jaya's investigation, which was based on a Model A report (filed by a police officer), was improperly terminated when the case was handed over to the military. Members of TAUD stated that they never received official notification that the Model A report had been closed, suggesting the investigation might still have been ongoing within the police department. During the conclusion of the proceedings, TAUD asserted that the police had demonstrably delayed the case and engaged in a covert termination of the investigation. Conversely, the police legal team argued that the praperadilan motion was premature and requested the judge to dismiss it, asserting no undue delay, improper transfer, or covert termination occurred.

“

The respondent clearly and demonstrably engaged in undue delay in handling the case experienced by the applicant. The respondent also demonstrably engaged in a covert termination of the investigation.