13 May Action Is a Call For Justice Regarding Human Rights
Jubi: 13 May Action Is a Call For Justice Regarding Human Rights In Papua
A human rights solidarity
group in Papua, SPP-HAM declared that the
action that took place on Monday, 13 May was clearly a call for justice
with regard to human rights violations which occurred in West Papua .
But even so, the action was banned by the police.
As has been earlier reported, Action to
Commemorate the 1 May which
Papuan activists regard marking the 50th anniversary of West Papua's
annexation by the Republic of Indonesia occurred in a number of places.
The Indonesian security forces, (TNI and Police)
took repressive and
brutal action against these actions which occurred in a number of
places, such as Sorong, Fak-Fak, Biak, Nabire and Timika.
Medlama, spokesman for KNPB (National Committee of West
said: 'The Indonesian security forces are clinging firmly to the
controversial claim that Papua had returned to the fold of the
Motherland and therefore, the authority of the Republic of Indonesia in
Papua cannot be questioned and cannot be challenged.'
He said that on the evening before annexation
day, 1 May 2013, a tragic
incident occurred which resulted in the loss of life. This was when the
security forces launched an attack on Papuan people in the complex in
Aimas, Sorong. 'During this attack a number of people were injured, two
of whom died - Abner Malagawa (20 years old) and Thomas Blesia (28 years
old) died after being hit by a bullets. Furthermore a woman, Salomina
Klambin (37 years old) was also shot and subsequently died after
attempts by doctors at Sorong hospital to remove bullets from her
'In response to
the repressive actions of the Indonesian security
forces in various parts of Papua on 1 May and the tragic incident in
Aimas Sorong, a number of Papuan activists in Jayapura, including young
people and students, held meetings in order to coordinate their actions
in several places in the vicinity of Abepura.. These meetings were
focussed on efforts to take joint action about the bloody incident in
As a result of these
meetings which were attended by activists from a
number of organisations, they reached agreement to respond to the
repressive actions by the security forces against the Papuan people in
Sorong and other places by organising human rights solidarity actions.
'These solidarity actions
would take the form of issuing press
statements and meeting journalists, which would then be followed up by
holding mass demonstrations outside the offices of the MRP, the DPRP and
the Governor's office.'
considering various levels of coordination, they decided
action would take place on 13 May. The solidarity team would send a
letter of notification of their intention to the chief of police in
Jayapura and to the local chief of police. The letter was sent on 10 May,
The letter to the police contained the names of
several people who were
responsible for these actions. They were: Yason Ngelia and Septi
Maidodga as representatives of the BEM-MPM Uncen (Cenderawasih
University), Bovit Bofra as the chairman of Garda-P (Democratic Papuan
People's Movement), Victor Yeimo as chairman of the KNPB, and Marthen
Manggaprouw as the representative of the West Papuan National Authority
Later that day, these meetings were followed up
by further coordination
between the activists who were involved in the planned solidarity action.
One day after
the announcement reporting their intention to carry out
this action, a representative of the police force in Papua from the
intelligence and security staff (Intelkam) phoned to say that those
responsible for the action should meet the director of Intelkam
regarding the planned action. Bovit Bofra and Yason Ngelia as
representatives responded to the summons at police headquarters in the
centre of Jayapura on 11 May at 9am where they met the director of
Intelkam, Chief Inspector Yakobus Marzuki. During this tense and
difficult meeting, the director of Intelkam asked them to explain the
action that was being planned.
addition to questioning the names of several groups which
involved in the solidarity action whose existence has not been
registered, they also complained about the politicisation of the
situation because it could potentially be disruptive for the
population.'This was because the announcement of the planned action
talked about a 'humanitarian tragedy ' in Sorong in which Papuan
civilians had fallen as victims.
The use of the word
'tragedy' in the announcement was, according to the
police, groundless and completely unacceptable. This was because the
actions taken by the security forces were fully in accordance with legel
procedures that are in force in the Republic of Indonesia. According to
the police officer, there were indications that the people mentioned
would be damaging national stability by organising an action on 13 May.
Following the issuing of a statement, the director of Intelkam issued a
letter refusing permission for the action that was planned for 13 May.
But the only name that was mentioned in the police
letter rejecting (the
action) was that of Victor Yeimo, the chairman of the KNPB whereas the
announcement of the intention to take action mentioned a number of other
names from various different organisations that were nor registered.
The Director of Intelkam also referred to the
position adopted by the
governor of Papua, Lukas Enembe, who said that taking such an action
would only disrupt development in Papua..
In response, Bovit and Yason
explained their position regarding the lack
o f permission by the police and clarified their intention to go ahead
with the action. But this discussion revealed many differences and led
to a bitter argument that lasted for twenty minutes.
Because no agreement was reached, Bovit
and Yason stated their firm
commitment that, in accordance with the agreement (between the
organisations), the action planned for 13 May would go ahead.
However, the director of Intelkam, said that the
police had not given
permission for the action to go ahead, and if it did, all those
responsible as well as those who took part would have to face the
consequences which included the likelihood of legal action.