Fury as Indonesian court dismisses 1998 mass rape lawsuit

JAKARTA – The Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) has dismissed a lawsuit against Culture Minister Fadli Zon for his remarks that denied mass rapes during the 1998 riots, a ruling rights groups and victims’ families call a major step backwards that further perpetuates impunity.

On April 21, an all-women panel of judges at the court ruled in favour of the minister, upholding his objection on the court’s jurisdiction to handle the lawsuit and concluding that the bench lacked the authority to adjudicate the case.

The judges did not provide detailed reasons for its ruling, as seen in the court’s case tracking system.

They also ordered the plaintiffs to pay court costs for the trial of 233,000 rupiah (S$17.20).

The ruling came after six months of proceedings on a lawsuit filed in October 2025 by seven plaintiffs, including former attorney-general Marzuki Darusman and Ms Ita Fatia Nadia, the mother of Ms Kusmiyati, who fell victim during the May 1998 riots that left more than 1,000 dead and saw Chinese Indonesians subjected to violent attacks.

The riots preceded the fall of former president Suharto.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that Mr Fadli’s conduct was unlawful and demanded a retraction of his statement made during an interview in June 2025, when he dismissed the mass rapes against Chinese Indonesian women amid the riot as rumours. 

The plaintiffs also pointed to the minister’s statement that there was never any proof of the incidents happening, citing a lack of any official records in historical documents while saying that the term “mass rape” was “problematic” as past findings of the incidents were “merely numbers” without details of the incidents.

The plaintiffs also demanded that Mr Fadli apologise to survivors and victims’ families.

In contrast to the minister’s claims, a government-sanctioned fact-finding team established by then President B.J. Habibie shortly after Mr Suharto’s resignation in 1998 found 85 victims of sexual violence linked to the May 1998 riots, most of whom were Chinese-Indonesian women.

Another investigation launched by the National Commission on Human Rights in 2003 concluded that the riots constituted crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations, although perpetrators of the tragedy remain unidentified nearly three decades on.

In a press conference on April 22, the plaintiffs expressed disappointment at the court ruling, describing it as a major setback that risks reinforcing a culture of impunity and undermining victims’ pursuit of justice that can deepen their wounds and trauma.

Ms Ita expressed deep frustration over what she described as the court’s “refusal to recognise documented evidence”, which included extensive archives and survivor testimonies gathered by volunteer groups, researchers and human rights investigators.

“What is being denied by Fadli Zon, and what is being negated by the PTUN, is historical fact,” Ms Ita stressed. “Denying what happened only strengthens a cycle of impunity that enables similar abuses to occur again.”

Mr Marzuki, who chaired the 1998 fact-finding team, said the ruling represents a “very dark chapter” for victims and survivors’ pursuit of justice.

He warned that the government may use the court’s decision to reinforce narratives that deny the occurrence of the 1998 mass rapes.

Despite the court’s ruling, Mr Marzuki asserted that “there should be no confusion over which document is authentic”.

He noted that Mr Fadli’s denial was fundamentally inconsistent with the team’s findings, which documented patterns of widespread sexual violence in the 1998 riots against women, in particular Chinese-Indonesians.

Files and documents of the report had been archived within the government, previously under the Justice Ministry, according to Mr Marzuki, who pointed out that the reports had never been formally contested by the government in the decades since.

Mr Arif Maulana of the Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation, who is also a plaintiff, said the ruling reflects “a failure by the administrative court to carry out its oversight role over government actions”, especially when a public official is seen as “distorting historical facts in a manner contrary to law and justice”.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Mr Daniel Winarta, said they would file an appeal against the ruling with the Jakarta State Administrative High Court. He argued that the case clearly falls under PTUN’s jurisdiction and should be examined on its substance rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.

Mr Fadli did not respond to The Jakarta Post’s request for comment. THE JAKARTA POST/ASIA NEWS NETWORK