The court
is originally a place where people can find justice and the truth. And above
all, the court cannot be used an instrument to achieve political interests.
Many of us are familiar with the tale of
Icarus in Greek mythology, which is about a young man who escapes imprisonment
using giant wings created by his father, Daedalus.
Icarus was so enthusiastic about flying
that he ignored his father’s warning against him flying too high and too close
to the sun because the wings would break.
The wings that at first helped Icarus
became the reason for his death, inspiring Dennis Miller ( 1990 ) to coin the
Icarus paradox, referring to a failure that resulted from the very elements
that initially led to success.
Apparently, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama
is experiencing this paradox. He rose as a media darling for championing
transparency. He translates transparency into letting the public know about
meetings he held, speeches he delivered and activities he conducted.
The blasphemy allegations he is now facing
stem from his speech he uploaded onto YouTube.
Now, transparency is used to calm his
adversaries to patiently wait for his trial, which is slated to begin on Dec.
13. The question now is whether we will watch another lengthy trial that is
broadcast live on television and whether it, if it happens, is appropriate.
Those who agree may find their
justification in Article 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). It is true
that the trial Ahok will face is open to the public. However, it does not
necessarily mean it can be broadcast live. Moreover, it may potentially work
against the neutrality of witnesses if it is.
According to Article 159, the presiding
judge shall issue an order that prevents witnesses from communicating with one
another prior to testifying in court.
The intention is to prevent them from
influencing one another and to enable them to testify independently. Therefore,
if the trial is broadcast live it opens up the possibility of witnesses
influencing each other.
With the mob rule becoming a phenomenon in
Indonesia, the safety of witnesses will also spark concern. Live coverage of
witnesses’ testimony may bring harm to them if somehow the mob dislikes their
accounts.
This condition must come into the law enforcer’s
calculation. With the emergence of the mob rule, we cannot be sure of what kind
of threats may be faced by the witnesses, especially if the aspiration is that
Ahok has to go to prison, no matter what.
Transparency is a good trait within
democracy. But it also brings a problem if transparency is abused and falls
into the wrong hands.
Therefore, the wisdom of the head judge
and the media are sought in this case. We cannot deny that this case will
attract the public’s attention.
We have already experienced a live
broadcast of a murder trial that divided the public into two extremes.
Whether the defendant was found guilty or
not was not determined when the verdict was read out, but when people outside
the courtroom commented on the case. The trial seemed to lose its authority as
the defendant was convicted by the press, or worse, by society.
Such a trial by the press or society may
be repeated in the case of Ahok. A middle ground can be achieved. Specifically,
for the hearing of the fact witnesses, I hope that it will not be broadcast
live, not only for the safety of witnesses, but also for a fair trial that is
the objective of the procedural law.
This does not mean that media coverage is
not allowed. The media can get access to the rest of the trial.
We hope that Ahok’s trial will not serve
as a rubber stamp to put him in prison given the pressures that have been
translated in three rallies called the “Defending Islam Action”, in which
hundreds of thousands of people turned up to demand his arrest.
The court is originally a place where
people can find justice and the truth. And above all, the court cannot be used
an instrument to achieve political interests.
In the case of Ahok’s trial, transparency
is a paradox. As journalist Tina Brown puts it, we live in the culture of
destructive transparency. It is true that live broadcast of a trial will give
the public access to the course of a court hearing. It may be good for Ahok’s
publicity and to satisfy his detractors’ thirst for punishment against him.
But fairness is my concern. So, how we
interpret transparency in this case will determine whether it bring us closer
to truth and justice or just to another paradox.
No comments:
Post a Comment