JAKARTA, November 2, 2026 – After nearly eight years of holding the status of a suspect in a case involving alleged minor assault, Suhari—also known as AOH—has finally secured a pretrial ruling that grants all of his requests. The South Jakarta District Court ruled in his favor regarding the lawsuit filed against the Jakarta Metro Police, with one of the primary issues being the prolonged handling of the case, which lacked legal certainty.
This ruling marks a significant development for Suhari, who had remained a suspect since September 2018. His legal team argued that the years-long legal process created uncertainty, especially given that the case has yet to reach a clear resolution.
Read Also: Explore the full discussion on Ade Batubara urging the North Sumatra Police Chief to investigate the former head of the Mandailing Natal (Madina) Health Office regarding alleged deductions of IDR 20–30 million from 2025 Operational Health Assistance (BOK) funds.
Suhari’s legal counsel, Hebarto Sinaga from the firm Osman Lofim, stated that the South Jakarta District Court panel of judges granted all the requests submitted in the pretrial motion.
According to Hebarto, a key basis for the motion was the “undue delay” in the handling of the case. He asserted that such a situation is unacceptable, as everyone is entitled to a legal process that proceeds with certainty and within a reasonable timeframe.
“Thank God, we have concluded this series of pretrial proceedings for our client, Mr. AOH. Today, the South Jakarta District Court has granted all of our requests,” Hebarto said following the hearing on Monday (November 2, 2026).
He explained that the excessive duration of the case handling was a primary concern addressed in the motion. They base this argument on the provisions of Article 158, letter e, of the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which includes the delay in handling a case without a valid reason as a subject for pretrial review.
“This process has been left hanging for approximately eight years,” he stated.
A Protracted Legal Issue
The case in which Suhari is named a suspect originated from a report alleging minor assault. However, Suhari denies the accusation, asserting that he never committed the acts he is accused of.
Hebarto explained that his client has been a suspect since September 2018. Yet, according to the legal counsel, the handling of the case—which has dragged on for years—has failed to provide any clarity regarding its resolution.
For Suhari, this matter is not merely about his status as a suspect; it also concerns an individual’s right to legal certainty and the protection of their rights throughout the legal process.
Suhari himself stated that he had attempted to provide an explanation to the investigators by presenting witnesses and CCTV footage, which he claims support his denial of the assault allegations.
“I was summoned as a suspect, yet I presented witnesses who were captured on CCTV. I provided everything. I did not commit assault, I did not strike anyone—I did nothing of the sort. And yet, I was named a suspect,” Suhari said.
This statement serves as Suhari’s rebuttal to the allegations leveled against him. Meanwhile, the pretrial ruling that granted his petition must be understood within the scope of a pretrial review; it does not automatically constitute a judgment on whether the underlying case itself has been proven.
Suspect Status Impacts Personal Life and Business
Beyond the legal issues, Suhari revealed that his long-standing status as a suspect has affected his personal life, his family, and the viability of his business. He stated that information regarding his legal status has affected the trust of several business associates. In fact, according to him, some parties have become hesitant to engage in business dealings with him.
Suhari feels that this situation has caused significant losses, as his previously thriving business operations have since declined.
“Showing a letter everywhere stating that I am a suspect has caused my business to fall apart. Business people who might otherwise work with me are now afraid—they view me as a criminal,” he said.
He also mentioned that the impact of this issue has extended to his family. According to Suhari, the uncertainty surrounding his legal status for years has created immense pressure and anxiety within his family life.
“In terms of the losses resulting from being named a suspect, my family has had to live in fear. Furthermore, my business has suffered a major setback; things were running smoothly before, but now people are reluctant to even meet with me,” he explained.
Awaiting Follow-up from the Jakarta Metro Police (Polda Metro Jaya)
Following the granting of the entire pretrial motion, Suhari’s side hopes that the Jakarta Metro Police (Polda Metro Jaya) will promptly follow up on the court’s ruling in accordance with applicable legal provisions.
Specifically, Hebarto hopes that the investigators will issue an Order for the Termination of Investigation (SP3), thereby ending the uncertainty surrounding the legal process that has persisted for years for his client.
“We hope for a better approach from the police—that an SP3 is issued immediately, and that our client is no longer pursued as a suspect,” Hebarto asserted.
Nevertheless, the legal counsel is still awaiting an official follow-up from the investigators. The issuance of an SP3 is a distinct procedural step that must be carried out according to the law, and it should be distinguished from the formal verdict of the pretrial hearing itself.
According to the Case Tracking Information System (SIPP) of the South Jakarta District Court, the case is registered under number 188/Pid.Pra/2026/PN JKT.SEL, filed on October 2, 2026, with the Jakarta Metro Police named as the respondent.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of the principle of legal certainty in any law enforcement process. The handling of a case should not be allowed to drag on indefinitely without a justifiable reason, as every legal process inevitably impacts an individual’s rights, personal life, family, and future.
For Suhari, the granting of the pretrial motion marks a significant development after years of striving for clarity regarding his legal status. The focus now shifts to the implementation of the court’s ruling, while maintaining respect for the established mechanisms and authority of law enforcement officials as mandated by legislation.
