Judge Says Polemic in PT WKM Nickel Mining Case Leads to Freeing Two Innocent Defendants

Viralterkini.id, JAKARTA, — The nickel mining dispute trial between PT Wana Kencana Mineral (WKM) and PT Position entered the final stage at the Central Jakarta District Court (PN), Wednesday (17/12/2025).

In the agenda for the 20th trial, the panel of judges handed down a verdict against two defendants, Awwab Hafidz and Marsel Bialembang, who are employees of PT WKM.

The panel of judges chaired by Sunoto stated that the two defendants were proven to have jointly committed obstruction as per the alternative charge.

However, the panel imposed a criminal sentence of 5 months and 25 days in prison, all of which the defendants had served during the period of detention.

Thus, both of them were declared free and must be immediately released from detention as of Tuesday (17/12).

In his decision, the judge stated that the sentence imposed was the same as the length of time the defendant had served in prison.

Because there was no remaining sentence to serve, the panel ordered that Awwab Hafidz and Marsel Bialembang be released immediately.

Previously, the Public Prosecutor (JPU) charged the two defendants with imprisonment for three years and six months and a fine of IDR 1 billion subsidiary six months in prison.

The charges relate to the installation of boundary markers for the mining business permit (IUP) area belonging to PT WKM, which was later questioned as a criminal act.

In his indictment, the public prosecutor assessed that the defendants’ actions violated the law because they were considered to be occupying a certain area, hampering the state’s economy, and destroying forest areas.

Apart from Article 162 of the Mineral and Coal Law (UU Minerba), the prosecutor also included articles related to forestry, making it possible to detain the defendants.

Responding to the decision, PT WKM’s attorney, Prof. Dr. Otto Hasibuan together with Cornelis Kaligis or OC Kaligis, stated that the panel of judges should consistently apply Article 162 of the Minerba Law.

According to him, from the start the criminal elements in the article were not fulfilled so the defendants should have been released.

“If we speak honestly, this should have been acquittal from the start. However, the panel took the middle path by imposing a sentence equal to a period of detention,” said Prof. OC Kaligis told reporters after the trial.

He added that in its deliberations the panel of judges referred a lot to the findings of forestry law enforcement (Gakkum) as well as the facts revealed in the trial.

According to him, these findings strengthen the defense argument that there is no element of forest destruction in this case.

“We are very grateful because our defense was considered seriously. The findings of the forestry Gakkum also became an important basis for the panel’s decision,” said OC Kaligis.

Another attorney, Rolas Sitinjak, stated that his party fully respects the decision of the panel of judges.

He considered that the sentences handed down were basically the same as acquittal or acquittal because the defendants were no longer serving additional sentences.

“Regarding the possibility of an appeal from the prosecutor, that is their right. However, we are grateful for today’s decision,” said Rolas.

Rolas also highlighted the inclusion of forestry articles in the indictment. According to him, this article is not relevant to the actions of the defendants and is only used to enable detention.

He emphasized that his client’s actions did not meet the elements of forest encroachment, wood theft or destruction of forest areas.

“The facts are clear, the forestry charges were not proven and were released. This strengthens our suspicion that the article was forced,” he said.

From the side monitoring the trial, the Coordinator of the North Maluku Activists Association, Yohannes Masudede, assessed that the panel of judges’ decision was objective.

He said that a criminal sentence that is the same as a prison term is basically equivalent to an acquittal.

“Even if the prosecutor takes legal action later, that is their right. However, in our opinion, the judge’s decision today is very objective and in accordance with the facts of the trial,” said Yohannes.

He added that from the start his party had been monitoring this case because there were concerns about intervention by certain interests.

However, the results of the decision were considered to be in line with expectations because they were based on legal considerations, Gakkum’s findings, and the facts revealed at the trial.

“For us, this shows the independence of judges in deciding cases. This decision reflects justice and legal certainty,” said Yohannes. (ma)