Indonesian civil society slams bank for freezing protest funds, citing legal concerns
Translated from Indonesian, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- A civil society coalition condemned the freezing of Supriyono's Bank Mandiri account, alleging it violated laws and hindered freedom of expression.
- Supriyono, a coordinator for the Pati United Community Alliance, had his account frozen while accompanying villagers protesting in Jakarta, with Rp80.9 million in personal and public funds inaccessible.
- Bank Mandiri apologized, stating the freeze was at law enforcement's request, but the coalition argues this lacks legal basis without clear justification and court approval.
A coalition of civil society groups has strongly criticized Bank Mandiri for freezing the account of Supriyono, a coordinator for the Pati United Community Alliance. The coalition argues that the action, which occurred while Supriyono was supporting villagers protesting in Jakarta, constitutes a violation of law, obstructs freedom of expression, and undermines public trust in banking security.
The account, containing approximately Rp80.9 million in personal funds and public donations meant for protest participants' needs like food and transportation, was blocked on August 21, 2026, the same day Supriyono was with villagers at the DPR building. Simultaneously, Supriyono's social media accounts reportedly experienced disruptions.
Bank Mandiri issued an apology, explaining that the account freeze was initiated at the request of law enforcement. However, the bank did not specify which agency made the request, the criminal case involved, or if a court order was obtained. The coalition contends that a mere request from law enforcement is insufficient grounds for arbitrarily blocking a citizen's account.
"Law enforcement and the bank must explain who gave the order, what case is being investigated, and what the relationship of the funds is to the alleged crime. Without that, the blocking has no accountable legal basis," the coalition stated. They cited Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates court permission for such actions, even in urgent situations, requiring subsequent judicial approval within 48 hours. The coalition believes the timing and target of the account freeze suggest banking tools were used to suppress dissent.
Law enforcement and the bank must explain who gave the order, what case is being investigated, and what the relationship of the funds is to the alleged crime. Without that, the blocking has no accountable legal basis.
Originally published by Republika in Indonesian. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.