Indonesia’s agriculture minister faces backlash over lawsuit against Tempo

 JournalismPakistan.com |  Published last month |  IFJ Media Release

Journalist unions condemn Indonesia’s agriculture minister for suing Tempo over a report on rice policy, calling the lawsuit an attack on press freedom and democracy.

Summary

JAKARTA — In a landmark press freedom case, independent media outlet Tempo awaits a court verdict in a lawsuit brought by Indonesia's agriculture minister over an allegedly damaging report on the country's rice quality policy. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its Indonesian affiliates, Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) Indonesia, and the Media and Creative Industry Workers Union for Democracy (SINDIKASI), condemn the minister's attempt to stifle investigative and critical reporting and call for the case to be immediately withdrawn.

Agriculture Minister Amran Sulaiman filed the civil lawsuit on July 1, accusing Tempo, one of Indonesia's most prominent investigative media outlets, of damaging the ministry's reputation and public trust over a May 16 article and accompanying social media poster titled "Polishing Rotten Rice."

The article alleged the National Logistics Agency (Bulog), an Indonesian government-owned firm responsible for managing the country's food reserves, had purchased rice from farmers regardless of quality to boost its national reserves, resulting in damaged rice stocks in Bulog's warehouses.

The suit demanded 200 billion Rupiah (approximately USD 12.5 million) in non-material damages, 19,173,000 Rupiah (approximately USD 1,150) in material damages, a public apology in ten national media outlets for 30 consecutive days, and a daily fine of 1,000,000 Rupiah (approximately USD 60) for non-compliance. Hearings at the South Jakarta District Court began on September 15, with a verdict set to be delivered on November 3.

Before filing the lawsuit, the ministry lodged a formal complaint with the Press Council on May 19, arguing that the phrase "rotten rice" misrepresented the article's content. In response, the Press Council issued a Statement of Assessment and Recommendation (PPR) on June 17, directing Tempo to revise the poster and issue an apology.

While Tempo complied with all recommendations the following day and the council had closed the case, Sulaiman proceeded with the lawsuit on July 1, alleging Tempo had not fully carried out its directives. Tempo offered the minister a right of reply as a peace proposal in mediation sessions that ran from August 7 to September 4, but the minister rejected the offer.

After the case's first hearing on September 15, Mustafa Layong, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Institute for the Press and Tempo's legal representative, said, "This lawsuit is only intended to hinder journalistic work and create a climate of fear for their work in the field."

On October 20, AJI urged the minister to withdraw the lawsuit, stressing that disputes over reporting must be handled through the Press Council, not the courts. "Tempo has fulfilled all recommendations, so the legal process should have ended there," said AJI President Nany Afrida. The Indonesian Association of Online Media (AMSI) also condemned the minister's lawsuit, arguing it sets a precedent for criminalizing the press.

AJI said: "The minister's approach is aimed at bankrupting and muzzling the media. This is a hallmark of state governance that is hostile to criticism and authoritarianism. This lawsuit must be halted, and the Prabowo administration should learn to accept criticism without killing those who deliver it."

SINDIKASI said: "The lawsuit filed by Minister Amran Sulaiman against Tempo is excessive, contradicts press freedom, and runs counter to President Prabowo's vision of strengthening democracy. As a public official, Minister Amran Sulaiman should set an example for the public by adhering to the Press Law, particularly in resolving news disputes through the Press Council."

The IFJ said: "Investigative and critical reporting in the public interest is a cornerstone of democracy, and the intimidatory legal case against Tempo only serves to suppress press freedom and silence independent journalism."