Police question 10 over report against lawyer Hotman Paris

Jakarta police are investigating lawyer Hotman Paris following reports of alleged insults against journalists. The Directorate of General Criminal Investigation at the Polda Metro Jaya has interviewed 10 witnesses as part of the probe.

"We have taken statements from 10 witnesses and will certainly clarify the information we obtained from previous statements with Mr. HPH," said Director of General Criminal Investigation at Polda Metro Jaya, Kombes Iman Imanuddin, on Friday (24/7). He stressed that the investigation would adhere to established procedures, ensuring no special treatment for anyone facing legal scrutiny.

“

We have taken statements from 10 witnesses and will certainly clarify the information we obtained from previous statements with Mr. HPH.

"The state guarantees that all citizens have equal standing before the law, meaning there is no special treatment for anyone facing the law," Imanuddin added. The Head of Public Relations at Polda Metro Jaya, Kombes Budi Hermanto, stated that expert testimonies would also be sought. This includes linguistic experts and those familiar with the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE).

“

The state guarantees that all citizens have equal standing before the law, meaning there is no special treatment for anyone facing the law.

Two organizations, the Indonesian Independent Online Media (MIO) and the Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI), have filed separate reports against Paris. The PWI's report, filed on Monday (20/7), cites alleged insults under Article 242 of the new Criminal Code (UU Nomor 1 Tahun 2023). MIO's report, also filed on Monday, includes alleged violations of Articles 433, 436, and 441 of the same Criminal Code, as well as provisions of the Press Law.

Paris has responded to the allegations, stating that his remarks during a press conference on July 17 were directed at individuals, not organizations. He explained that his comments were a response to persistent questioning, likening his exasperation to asking if someone "has a brain." He maintained that his statements were aimed at specific individuals and did not constitute an offense against the organizations themselves.

“

It was from person to person. I explained at length, he didn't, he kept insisting, so the answer should have been 'don't you understand?', I said it's the same as 'don't you have a brain?', why don't you understand. And that was to an individual, not to the organization. So it's a complaint offense, not a press offense.