FEB 16 — Judgment time will soon come now that the trial of Abu Bakar Bashir, the firebrand Indonesian cleric widely considered the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, is underway.
Confronted with charges of leading and financing paramilitary activities of the Lintas Tandzim cell of unexpected alliances in Aceh that was uncovered last year, prosecutors said Bashir will be tried for mobilising people for terror acts. The charge carries the death sentence under the country’s Anti-Terrorism Law.
How the judiciary manages his latest trial will have significant implications for the country’s attempts to rein in religious extremism as well as its long-term counterterrorism efforts. Not least, it will have an impact on how Indonesia ultimately moves forward as a cohesive multi-confessional democratic nation under the spectre of terrorism.
This is not the first time Bashir, 72, has appeared in court. He had stood trial at least twice before on terrorism charges.
The authorities, however, have had trouble making the charges stick, much to the ire of its international partners in counterterrorism; and if the outcome is similar this time round, Bashir will emerge a bigger martyr than ever within his circle.
But with an anti-terror bill that is seeking to criminalise preparatory acts for violence, it can be expected that those espousing extremist rhetoric — in this case, militant Islam — be held accountable for inciting.
This says a lot about Indonesia’s current commitment against provocateurs like Bashir, particularly considering the significant sway the charismatic religious leader has over his followers.
That said, a preventive edict as such is not without controversy and justifiably so. It smacks of anti-subversion laws taken advantage of during the Suharto period and presents new challenges to the fledgling democracy.
Hard-won civil liberties often face pressures under demands to respond to terrorist attacks despite the best of the government’s intentions to stem violence.
The standing test for Indonesia is to ensure that new powers set in place cannot be abused in order to make good the current case against Bashir. Among other concerns, the authorities have to make clear when and how the new laws will be used, particularly when it comes to intra-regional violence.
Bashir’s trial can be a key early-stage point to walk this talk. The viability of the anti-terror law has to be put through the most rigorous of tests — that of public opinion, both domestic and international, with the former as priority. An open and public trial is therefore crucial.
To its credit, Indonesia has done rather well on that account, for instance, with the trials of the Bali bombers and others after them. But transparency has never been more important especially so now that the military — with its infamous history of power politics, corruption and human rights abuses — have been inducted into the new counterterrorism outfit that makes up the National Anti-Terror Agency (BNPT).
Bashir’s court appearances have tended to attract massive throngs of supporters from across Java and this one is no different. They are mostly rabble-rousers who will take the opportunity to interrupt the proceedings and undermine the justice process. The episode will be spun into yet another case of religious prejudice to add to their repertoire of anti-Muslim conspiracies.
Let them — so long as their remonstrations do not manifest in violent tantrums.
An open prosecution showcases a good example of justice in progress and helps underscore an unbiased judiciary confident in fine police work; it also demonstrates how terrorist suspects are dealt with by the laws of the land.
For the rest of Indonesia, a public trial for Bashir serves as a reaffirmation that suspects, if convicted, are punished for their wrongdoings despite Muslim sensitivities — just like any others who break the law and that their conduct, though political and somewhat religiously motivated, is not above criminality.
In this regard, there are two things in particular that the bench will have to convince watchers: That Bashir is once again presented before them because evidence speaks against him, not because of political pressures from beyond Indonesia’s borders; and that it is the deed of violence, or the encouraging of violence that is punishable by law, not personal convictions. Any impressions otherwise will prove costly for the government.
Inevitably, people will take sides and for a variety of reasons beyond religion. But nothing lesser should be expected from a budding democracy. — Today
* Sulastri Osman is an Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS) at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
