PRIME NEWS POST
The INDONESIAN (Labuan Bajo)— The trial of a land dispute case in Kerangan has once again captured public attention. During the hearing held at the Labuan Bajo District Court on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, new facts emerged, reinforcing allegations of overlapping claims regarding the rights to a 40-hectare plot of land currently under dispute.
This was conveyed by Cristian Soni during a press statement on Thursday (23/4/2026) in Labuan Bajo, West Manggarai.
The main focus of the trial was the testimony of Christian Soni, a factual witness representing the heirs of the late Ibrahim Hanta (IH). In his statement before the panel of judges, Soni systematically detailed the chronology of the issue, which he stated originated from claims over the 40 hectares made by Santosa Kadiman and related parties starting in January 2014.
“During the trial, I emphasized my role as the authorized representative managing the land and having investigated various legal facts. This includes testimonies from corruption cases in Kupang, findings from the Task Force for Land Mafia of the Attorney General’s Office, as well as other court decisions that have permanent legal force (inkracht),” he said.
According to Soni, the root of the problem lies in the claim over the land, which is alleged to be situated on customary land owned by the heirs. The land was previously legally obtained from customary leaders, the late Ishaka and Haku Mustafa.
Trail of Questionable Documents
During the trial, Soni pointed out several irregularities in the documents used as the basis for the land claim.
First, in the Sale and Purchase Agreement (PPJB) dated January 2014, made before Notary Billy Yohanes Ginta, the land object was only listed under the name Beatrix Seran Nggebu without specifying the exact area. Additionally, it included land under the name Nikolaus Naput, said to originate from Nasar Bin Haji Supu.
Second, the underlying title deeds dated March 10, 1990, and May 2, 1990, indicated a transaction of 16 hectares from Nasar to Nikolaus Naput. However, the validity of these documents is being questioned.
Third, based on testimonies from corruption cases and other civil cases that have obtained permanent legal status, the entire land area—totaling approximately 31 hectares—was reportedly revoked by customary leaders on January 17, 1998.
AGO Findings: Land Certificates are Legally Defective
Furthermore, Soni revealed the results of an investigation by the Task Force for Land Mafia of the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) dated September 23, 2024. In that document, all Certificates of Ownership Rights (SHM) issued based on those titles were declared invalid.
“No original documents were found in the National Land Agency (BPN) archives. Even BPN itself admitted the absence of these documents. This rendered the SHMs issued in 2017 legally and administratively defective,” Soni firmly stated in court.
Moreover, in another legally binding decision, PPJB Number 5 of 2014 was declared null and void by law because the land object was already in dispute. Consequently, all legal agreements derived from that document have no legal standing.
AGO Recommendations and Legal Steps
Following these findings, the Attorney General’s Office, via official letter Number R.1038/D/Dek/09/2024, recommended that all parties pursue legal channels—both civil and criminal—to obtain legal certainty.
This recommendation was followed by the Kerangan land heirs, who filed a civil lawsuit and a criminal report with the National Police Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim).
However, the situation became more complex as Santosa Kadiman’s side maintained their claim and even filed counter-reports against the heirs.
In another development, a case review at Bareskrim on December 16, 2025, regarding a report by Johanis Van Naput and Muhamad Syair reportedly ended in termination, as the land in question had already been transferred to another party.
New Criminal Report: Alleged Document Forgery
The matter did not end there. On February 26, 2026, the heirs, through their legal representative, submitted a new criminal report to Bareskrim alleging document forgery. A case review was conducted on March 12, 2026.
The reported parties in this case are Santosa Kadiman and others allegedly involved in the use of disputed documents, including land administration products issued based on those documents.
Soni also highlighted inconsistencies in boundary descriptions within old documents. In a 1990 letter, the eastern boundary was stated as state land, but in subsequent documents, this boundary was altered without clear justification.
Testimony Disputes Plaintiff’s Claims
“I appeared as a witness to provide the judges with a complete picture. The key to this case lies in the AGO’s findings and previous court decisions,” Soni said.
He added that the ongoing civil and criminal processes are formal steps to strengthen legal certainty based on existing evidence.
Meanwhile, after the trial, Irjen Pol (Ret.) I Wayan Sukawinaya, legal advisor for the Ibrahim Hanta family, explained that the witness testimony had effectively dismantled the arguments put forward by the Plaintiffs.
“Based on today’s trial facts, the witness presented—whose legal standing was recognized by the panel—provided comprehensive testimony. We can confidently state that 99% of the Plaintiff’s claims have been refuted,” said Irjen Pol (Ret.) I Wayan Sukawinaya.
He explained that the witness detailed the history of the disputed land based on field experience and thorough research.
“It was revealed in court that the 1990 title documents claimed by the Plaintiff had actually been revoked by Customary Authorities in 1998. This revocation confirms that the documents serving as the basis for the lawsuit are legally defective and invalid,” he clarified.
Furthermore, regarding accusations of document forgery leveled against his clients, he stated that a Special Case Review at Bareskrim last December concluded the allegations were unproven.
“During the review, the reporting party (Mr. Muhamad Syair) failed to produce original documents or authentic evidence to support their forgery claims when confronted by experts,” he explained.
He pointed out that a key element in a Tort Lawsuit (PMH) is the existence of actual loss. However, facts show the land rights have already been transferred to Mr. Erwin Santoso Kadiman.
“Therefore, the Plaintiff no longer has the legal standing to claim losses over land they no longer own. Today’s hearing clarifies our legal position. With the withdrawal of customary support for the Plaintiff’s documents and the dismissal of forgery allegations, this lawsuit should be dismissed by law,” he concluded.
Jon Kadis: Testimony Aligns with Legal Facts
Meanwhile, Jon Kadis, S.H., from Sukawinaya-88 Law Firm & Partners, part of the legal team representing the heirs, affirmed that Soni’s testimony aligns with established legal facts.
“The testimony is accurate. This is part of the struggle to ensure justice and to promote investment that respects the rights of local communities,” Jon stated.
The trial is set to continue, amid growing public interest in a case that not only concerns land ownership but also touches upon serious allegations of land mafia practices in the strategic area of Labuan Bajo.
Reported from various media sources //photo from Google documents // contribution by Prime News Post international online media // news.paper
Related News
