The Irony of Justice: When a Victim Becomes a Suspect

In Indonesia, the story of Hogi Minaya (43) has sent shockwaves through the Indonesian public, sparking a fierce debate on where self-defence ends and vigilantism begins. What started as a heroic act to protect his wife from a violent mugging has spiralled into a legal nightmare that defies common sense.

The case that happened in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, has become a subject of intense public debate as it touches upon the dilemma between self-defence and law enforcement. Hogi was named a suspect after his actions in pursuing his wife's muggers resulted in the deaths of both perpetrators.

The mugging and subsequent pursuit involving Hogi Minaya took place on Saturday, 26 April 2025, at approximately 05:30 WIB (with some sources citing 06:27 WIB). The incident occurred on Jalan Solo, specifically in the vicinity of the Janti Flyover through to the front of Transmart Maguwoharjo, Sleman, Yogyakarta."

According to the available information, the details regarding the timeline of the incident and its subsequent public exposure are divided into two distinct phases. The initial mugging and the pursuit involving Hogi Minaya took place on Saturday, 26 April 2025, occurring between 05:30 and 06:27 WIB along Jalan Solo, specifically spanning the area from the Janti Flyover to the front of Transmart Maguwoharjo in Sleman, Yogyakarta. While amateur footage of the aftermath went viral immediately after the event via social media accounts such as @merapi_uncover, the narrative at that time focused primarily on the deaths of two muggers who hit a wall while being chased. However, the case only surged into the national spotlight and sparked widespread controversy around 22 to 23 January 2026, following news that Hogi had been officially named a suspect and his case file transferred to the Prosecution Service. Public outrage intensified upon the discovery that Hogi was required to wear a GPS tracking anklet as a condition of his house arrest, despite his status as a victim of the original crime. It is worth noting that while the police had actually designated him a suspect as early as June or July 2025, the matter remained largely out of the public eye until the commencement of the prosecution process in early 2026.

It all began on a Saturday morning in April 2025. Hogi’s wife, Arista, was riding her motorbike in Sleman, Yogyakarta, when two men on a motorcycle slashed her bag straps with a cutter and sped off. Hogi, who was driving nearby, witnessed the attack and immediately pursued the thieves. In a high-stakes chase, Hogi attempted to block their path. The collision resulted in the thieves crashing into a wall, a crash that proved fatal for both.

To the public’s disbelief, the police did not treat Hogi as a hero. Instead, they named him a suspect under traffic negligence laws. By January 2026, the case escalated as Hogi was handed over to the prosecution, forced to wear a GPS tracking anklet like a common criminal.

In the most heartbreaking turn of events, the latest development reveals a profound moral paradox. Despite being the original victim of the crime, Hogi Minaya—driven by a desire for peace and perhaps the weight of the legal system—reportedly offered an apology to the families of the deceased muggers. This gesture, intended to pave the way for "Restorative Justice", has left many Indonesians outraged. Why should a man who lost his property and saw his wife’s life threatened be the one to bow his head?

The public reaction to the news that Hogi’s wife felt compelled to apologise to the families of the muggers has been one of overwhelming indignation and disbelief, with many viewing the gesture as a humiliating reversal of roles between the victim and the victimiser. On social media and in public discourse, the prevailing sentiment is that such an apology represents a "moral tragedy" where the innocent are forced to bow before the kin of criminals simply to satisfy the technical requirements of a legal settlement. Many citizens have expressed their heartbreak, arguing that this act of contrition is a sign of a broken justice system that effectively coerces victims into submission rather than vindicating their right to self-protection. Ultimately, the public sees this apology not as a genuine act of reconciliation, but as a desperate tactical move forced upon a traumatised family to avoid a gruelling prison sentence, further fueling the perception that the law in this case has lost its moral compass.

While the police maintain that their decision to charge Hogi Minaya is a necessary application of "positive law," this rigid stance has been met with fierce public condemnation for its apparent lack of common sense and moral grounding. By hiding behind the technicalities of the Traffic and Road Transport Law, the authorities are effectively punishing a man for a split-second decision made under extreme duress to protect his family. The official logic—that Hogi endangered other road users by swerving into the thieves—conveniently ignores the fact that the primary danger was created by the armed muggers themselves, not the victim attempting to stop them. To treat a man who was fighting back against a violent crime as a common traffic offender is not only a failure of the legal system but a dangerous precedent that suggests the law values the procedural rights of criminals over the safety and justice of the victims.

Within the framework of criminal law, Article 49 of the Indonesian Criminal Code provides for the right to self-defence, yet the police have categorised Hogi’s actions as "Noodweer Exces," or an excessive use of force that exceeds legal boundaries. This stance is primarily based on the principle of proportionality, with the authorities arguing that the act of pursuing the thieves until it resulted in their deaths was vastly disproportionate to the initial threat of a stolen bag. Furthermore, the investigators applied the principle of subsidiarity, suggesting that Hogi had alternative options available to him, such as recording the registration plate or shouting for assistance, rather than engaging in a high-risk pursuit. Because Hogi chose to initiate "physical contact" with his vehicle, the police contend that he overstepped his rights by assuming a law enforcement role that ultimately led to an avoidable loss of life.

The legal principle of "Vim Vi Repellere Licet" serves as a universal maxim asserting that it is permissible to repel force with force, a concept that many believe should exonerate Hogi Minaya. From a public perspective, the perpetrators deliberately placed themselves in harm's way the moment they chose to commit a violent robbery against an innocent person. Consequently, the deaths of these criminals are viewed not as a failure of the victim’s conduct, but as an inherent occupational hazard they accepted by embarking on a criminal path, meaning the burden of the outcome should not rest upon a victim merely attempting to defend his rights.

From a sociological perspective, the prospect of punishing Hogi Minaya raises grave concerns regarding the balance between a deterrent effect on crime and the unjust criminalisation of victims, as such a conviction would likely send a damaging message to the wider community. There is a profound fear that if Hogi is imprisoned, ordinary citizens will become too intimidated to resist criminal acts or intervene to help others, haunted by the prospect of being treated as suspects themselves. Furthermore, this legal precedent could inadvertently embolden criminals, who might feel far more secure in their illicit activities knowing that their victims would hesitate to give chase or defend themselves in order to avoid a gruelling legal ordeal.

The tension between the Deterrent Effect and the Criminalisation of Victims represents a critical crossroads for the Indonesian justice system, as the outcome of Hogi Minaya's case will dictate the future of public safety and civic duty. When the law prioritises procedural perfection over the natural right to self-defence, it inadvertently creates a "chilling effect" where law-abiding citizens choose passivity over intervention out of fear that the state will treat them more harshly than the actual criminals. This imbalance suggests that the legal system is becoming a tool of intimidation for victims rather than a shield against predators, effectively punishing those who refuse to be helpless in the face of violence.

The societal impact of such a precedent in Indonesia could be devastating, leading to a breakdown in social solidarity and the erosion of the "Gotong Royong" spirit in maintaining communal security. If people are taught that defending themselves or their families results in a GPS tracker and a potential prison sentence, the streets become significantly safer for criminals, who operate with the confidence that their targets are legally restrained from fighting back. Ultimately, this creates a vacuum of authority where the police cannot be everywhere at once, yet the citizens who are actually on the scene are too terrified of the prosecutor to act, resulting in an environment where crime thrives under the unintended protection of the law.

The case has ignited a fierce public debate surrounding Article 49 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which governs the concept of forced self-defence or "noodweer". Many observers argue that it is fundamentally unjust for an individual to face the threat of imprisonment for protecting their family from a violent crime, whereas the police maintain the legal stance that any fatality resulting from a road traffic accident must be held accountable before the law.

In light of the mounting tension surrounding the Hogi Minaya case, legal experts have begun to scrutinise the profound clash between the procedural justice championed by the Sleman Police and the substantive justice demanded by the public. From a procedural standpoint, legal analysts note that the police feel compelled to follow the letter of the law, arguing that because a fatal collision occurred on a public road, a formal investigation and suspect designation are "mandatory" steps to ensure every death is accounted for within the judicial system. However, proponents of substantive justice argue that this "textbook" application of the law ignores the moral reality of the situation, asserting that true justice should prioritise the victim's right to defend his family over the procedural rights of deceased criminals. Experts warn that if the court fails to bridge this gap by recognising the extreme duress Hogi faced, it risks delivering a verdict that is legally "correct" but morally bankrupt, further alienating a public that increasingly views the legal system as a barrier to personal safety.

The impact of this case on the fabric of Indonesian society manifests as an immediate surge in public cynicism and a profound sense of grievance, which threatens to severely undermine trust in the integrity of the national legal system. In the long term, such a precedent risks creating a dangerous culture of passivity where citizens are too intimidated by the prospect of prosecution to intervene during crimes, thereby emboldening criminals and compromising collective security. To address this crisis, policymakers must urgently refine the legal criteria for self-defence and expand the use of "Restorative Justice" to ensure that victims are not re-victimised by the state. It is essential for the authorities to adopt a more nuanced, contextual approach that prioritises the fundamental safety of the public over the rigid application of administrative traffic laws.

[Bahasa]

Prabowonomics: The Davos Declaration

The crisp alpine air of Davos has witnessed many a manifesto, but few have carried the disruptive weight of the ‘Davos Declaration’ delivered by President Prabowo Subianto this January. Emerging from a fifteen-year presidential hiatus from the podium, Prabowo did not merely present an investment prospectus; he unveiled a sophisticated new doctrine—Prabowonomics. By weaving together a $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund, a radical commitment to grassroots nutrition, and a daringly pragmatic peace formula that dares to mention the security of all parties, the President has signalled the end of Indonesia’s inward-looking era. This is no longer a nation content to sit on the sidelines of history; it is an emerging titan declaring its terms for a new global order defined by growth with equity and a fiercely independent moral compass.

Indonesia has waited for 15 years for its Head of State to deliver an in-person address at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The last Indonesian President to attend and speak directly on the Davos stage was Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) in 2011, when he delivered a special address on Indonesia's role in the G20 and global economic stability. Although Former President Joko Widodo participated in a virtual dialogue with the WEF in 2022, he never attended the annual winter meeting in Switzerland in person during his ten-year tenure. Consequently, President Prabowo Subianto’s appearance in January 2026 marks a significant diplomatic milestone, ending a long hiatus of direct presidential presence at one of the world’s most influential economic gatherings.

President Prabowo's physical presence is often viewed by international observers as signalling the return of a more active and expansive Indonesian foreign diplomacy on the Western stage, after the previous decade had been more focused on domestic infrastructure development.

President Prabowo Subianto delivered his keynote address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday, 22 January 2026. The speech was scheduled as a "special address" and took place between 14:00 and 14:30 Central European Time (CET). According to the provided transcript, the total duration of the delivery was approximately 41 minutes and 30 seconds, extending slightly beyond the originally allotted thirty-minute slot. He delivered his speech without a formal script or the use of a teleprompter. His delivery was characteristically extemporaneous, relying on a mastery of the subject matter rather than reading prepared remarks. This was evident from his frequent use of conversational fillers (such as "uh" or "I think"), direct eye contact with the audience, and his ability to weave in personal anecdotes—such as his story about the wise elder and the reference to "greedomics." His speech felt like a direct, heartfelt communication of his vision, maintaining a natural flow that is typical of his oratory style in international forums.

President Prabowo Subianto opened his address by asserting that peace and stability are the fundamental prerequisites for global growth and prosperity, noting that Indonesia has intentionally chosen unity and friendship over fragmentation and enmity. He highlighted Indonesia's economic resilience, citing a consistent growth rate of over 5% and the maintenance of inflation at approximately 2%. To further drive development, the government established Danantara, a sovereign wealth fund managing $1 trillion in assets, which allows Indonesia to engage with the world as an equal partner.

A central theme of the administration's policy is the empowerment of human capital through the "Free Nutritious Meals" programme, which currently serves nearly 60 million people daily and is projected to reach over 82 million by the end of 2026. Furthermore, the President detailed extensive investments in health and education, including free annual medical check-ups for citizens and the digital modernisation of tens of thousands of schools. To break the cycle of poverty, the government is constructing 500 boarding schools specifically for children from the most impoverished backgrounds.

The President also took a firm stance against corruption and what he termed "greedomics," revealing that his administration has already confiscated 4 million hectares of illegal plantations and mines. He emphasised that the rule of law must prevail over vested interests and warned that his officials cannot be bought. Finally, he reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to global trade and environmental protection, inviting the international community to the Ocean Impact Summit in Bali this June.

The international community, including global financial institutions and market analysts, responded with notable optimism to President Prabowo’s address. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international observers praised Indonesia as a "global bright spot," acknowledging the nation’s disciplined fiscal management and its resilient 5% annual growth rate. Global investors particularly welcomed the introduction of Danantara, viewing it as a sophisticated vehicle for high-level partnership; however, they remain watchful for tangible results and the consistent application of international governance standards. Furthermore, the President's firm rejection of "greedomics" in favour of "Prabowonomics"—which balances profit with social equity—was interpreted by the foreign press as a bold declaration of Indonesia's intent to lead as an equal and moral global partner.

On the domestic front, the speech was met with widespread appreciation from academics, politicians, and the general public. National analysts lauded the President for his transparent admission of internal challenges, such as systemic corruption, while simultaneously showcasing concrete achievements like the revocation of illegal corporate licences. The Indonesian diaspora in Switzerland expressed immense pride, noting that the President's presence at Davos after a decade-long hiatus has effectively restored Indonesia’s standing at the heart of global economic discourse. Domestically, the address is being hailed as a strategic "playbook" for national development, successfully bridging the gap between populist social programmes and the rigorous demands of global economic integration.

Beyond his main address, President Prabowo Subianto engaged in several high-profile meetings and secured significant commitments that underscored Indonesia's strategic interests:

• The £4 Billion (Rp 90 Trillion) Investment: Although announced during the same overseas tour, this substantial investment was primarily formalised during his visit to the United Kingdom just before Davos. The commitment, worth approximately Rp 90 trillion, focuses on the maritime sector, specifically the construction and assembly of 1,582 fishing vessels. This project is expected to create 600,000 domestic jobs and modernise Indonesia's maritime infrastructure through a partnership with British firm Babcock.
• A Special Meeting with Zinedine Zidane: On Thursday, 22 January 2026, the President held a warm 45-minute discussion with French football legend Zinedine Zidane and his son, Theo Zidane. The meeting focused on the development of grassroots football in Indonesia. President Prabowo shared his vision of equipping every new school in Indonesia with a proper football field and sought Zidane’s expert advice on strengthening the national team and youth coaching systems.
• Environmental and Maritime Collaboration: The President also met with philanthropist Ray Dalio to discuss marine research. This collaboration involves the OceanX initiative, which aligns with Indonesia's focus on its vast maritime territory. Furthermore, the President used the Indonesia Pavilion to showcase the "Prabowonomics" vision to world leaders, successfully positioning Indonesia as a key player in global environmental and economic stability.
• Global Peace Diplomacy: It was also revealed that Indonesia has joined the Board of Peace, a charter aimed at resolving international conflicts, including efforts to promote peace in Gaza, reflecting the President's commitment to "friendship with all nations."

The investment commitment of approximately £4 billion (IDR 90 trillion) represents a transformative partnership between the Indonesian government and Babcock International, a prominent British aerospace, defence, and security company. This strategic agreement focuses on the large-scale construction and assembly of 1,582 modern fishing vessels to be built within Indonesian shipyards. The primary objective is to modernise Indonesia's ageing fishing fleet, thereby enhancing the productivity and safety of local fishermen. Beyond the hardware, this project is estimated to generate 600,000 new jobs and includes a significant transfer of technology, ensuring that Indonesia's domestic maritime industry gains world-class shipbuilding capabilities.

President Prabowo's collaboration with Ray Dalio, the renowned philanthropist and founder of Bridgewater Associates, centres on an ambitious marine exploration initiative through OceanX. During their meeting in Davos, they discussed the deployment of the high-tech research vessel, OceanXplorer, to map and study Indonesia’s vast and largely unexplored deep-sea biodiversity. As Indonesia is three-quarters water, this partnership is vital for climate change mitigation and the sustainable management of marine resources. This collaboration will culminate in the Ocean Impact Summit in Bali this June, where Indonesia and OceanX will showcase their findings and advocate for global ocean conservation as a pillar of the future blue economy.

President Prabowo appeared remarkably vigorous and at ease throughout his 41-minute address. Far from showing signs of fatigue despite his demanding international schedule, he exuded a commanding yet relaxed presence on the Davos stage. His delivery was punctuated by spontaneous wit and a charismatic demeanour, often leaning towards the lectern conversationally rather than standing stiffly. He appeared deeply engaged with his audience, frequently making direct eye contact and smiling while delivering complex economic data. This sense of "relaxed authority" allowed him to transition smoothly from serious topics, such as the fight against corruption, to lighter moments. One of the most captivating aspects of President Prabowo’s performance was his ability to inject humour and personal warmth into a high-level economic discourse. A standout moment occurred towards the end of his address when he discussed maritime research. He playfully compared Elon Musk’s SpaceX with Ray Dalio’s OceanX, drawing laughter from the audience by suggesting that while Musk is looking at the stars, Indonesia is deeply committed to the mysteries of the sea, given that three-quarters of the nation is water.

Furthermore, he demonstrated his relaxed authority when discussing the serious topic of "greedomics." Instead of sticking to a dry economic script, he shared a heartfelt anecdote about a wise elder who taught him that true wealth is not about what one accumulates, but what one leaves behind. His ability to pivot from complex fiscal data—such as the $1 trillion assets of Danantara—to these light-hearted and philosophical reflections showed a leader who was not only physically vigorous but also intellectually at ease on the world stage.

The concept of Prabowonomics, as articulated by President Prabowo in Davos, is built upon the philosophy of "Growth with Equity". He argued that economic figures are meaningless if they do not translate into a better quality of life for the common citizen. This vision is supported by four strategic pillars:

• Fiscal Credibility and Modernisation: The President emphasised that Indonesia’s reputation as a reliable debtor—having never once defaulted—is the bedrock of its credibility. This is now bolstered by Danantara, a $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund designed to move Indonesia away from a "subsistence economy" towards high-value industrialisation.
• Human Capital as National Security: He spoke passionately about the "Free Nutritious Meals" programme, framing it not just as a social initiative, but as a vital investment in national intelligence and productivity. By feeding over 80 million people, he aims to ensure that no Indonesian child is left behind in the global race for innovation.
• The Rule of Law against "Greedomics": In a particularly candid moment, the President condemned "greedomics"—the pursuit of profit at the expense of the law and the environment. He used the recent seizure of 4 million hectares of illegal land as proof that his administration prioritises the "sanctity of the law" over the interests of the few.
• A "Good Neighbour" Foreign Policy: Prabowo reaffirmed Indonesia’s stance as a non-aligned, responsible global citizen. He invited the world to collaborate on the "Blue Economy," specifically through marine research, asserting that Indonesia seeks to be a bridge between nations rather than a source of friction.

During the concluding segment of his address, President Prabowo Subianto articulated a balanced and comprehensive path to peace by stating:

"True and lasting peace can only be realised when there is mutual recognition and respect for the safety and dignity of all peoples. We must reach a settlement where the rights of the Palestinian people are fully restored, but we must also acknowledge that peace requires a framework where Israel’s security is equally recognised, respected, and guaranteed. It is only when all parties feel secure, and their existence is no longer under threat, that we can truly achieve the global stability necessary for shared prosperity."

This statement reflects the essence of the 'Board of Peace' which he proposed. In a diplomatic context, this is a highly strategic move because:

• A Realist Approach: He acknowledges that without security guarantees for Israel, the conflict will never end permanently.
• Global Leadership: By stating this at Davos, he positions Indonesia not merely as a supporter of one side, but as an honest and rational mediator which understands the concerns of all parties to the conflict.
• Balance: He nonetheless balances this with the restoration of the Palestinian people's rights, thereby not abandoning the fundamental principle of Indonesia's foreign policy." 

The international response to President Prabowo’s balanced peace formula was swift and varied. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal described the address as a "sophisticated diplomatic pivot," noting that by explicitly mentioning the security requirements of Israel, Prabowo had positioned Indonesia as a credible candidate for high-level mediation. Analysts at The Economist suggested that this pragmatism aims to reassure Western markets that Indonesia is a rational and moderate global leader. Conversely, Al Jazeera and several Middle Eastern commentators highlighted the President's insistence on the "full restoration of Palestinian rights," viewing his mention of Israeli security as a strategic necessity within a broader call for an end to the occupation. While some conservative circles in the Arab world remained cautious, the general consensus among global diplomats in Davos was that Indonesia had successfully demonstrated a "Third Way" of diplomacy—one that is both principled and realistically grounded.

Domestically, the reactions were split between praise for the President's "global statesmanship" and scrutiny from traditional activists. Human Rights activists and groups like MER-C expressed concern that the focus on security should not overshadow the urgent need for accountability regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Despite these nuances, the general sentiment within the Indonesian business community was overwhelmingly positive, as the President's moderate and rational tone was seen as a major boost to Indonesia's "investment grade" reputation.

A particularly memorable moment in the President's speech occurred when he discussed social stability and national morale. He cited the 2025 Gallup World Happiness Report (and similar longitudinal studies by the Happy Planet Index), noting that despite the global economic volatility, Indonesians consistently rank among the most optimistic and happiest people in the world.

Prabowo remarked with a smile:

"According to global research—including the latest Gallup findings—my people are some of the happiest on earth. But we must ask ourselves: is it enough to be happy with little? My mission under Prabowonomics is to ensure that this happiness is backed by dignity, proper nutrition, and economic security. We want our people to be happy not just because of their spirit, but because their children are healthy and their futures are certain."

President Prabowo’s commentary on the Gallup findings was marked by a touch of "melancholy pride." He acknowledged the paradox of the Indonesian spirit, noting that while the data shows a high happiness index, he is acutely aware of the hardships behind those smiles. He remarked:

"I know my people well. I have spent my life among them. It is true, as the researchers say, that we are a happy nation. But I know exactly why they smile. Even in the face of poverty, even when they are struggling to put food on the table, an Indonesian will still greet you with a smile. It is our strength, but for me as a leader, it is also a source of constant concern. We must not exploit their patience or their good nature. Their smiles should not be a mask for hardship; they should be a reflection of true prosperity."

This candid admission added a layer of humanity to "Prabowonomics," framing his economic policies as a moral debt to a population that remains resilient and kind despite systemic difficulties.

In the final analysis, "Prabowonomics: The Davos Declaration" is far more than a technical blueprint for an emerging market; it is a profound reassertion of Indonesia’s moral and economic independence. By pledging to turn the resilient smiles of his people into a foundation of real, tangible prosperity through the $1 trillion Danantara fund, and by offering a pragmatic "security for all" vision to a fractured world, President Prabowo has redefined what it means to be a global power. He has presented a world where fiscal credibility and human dignity are not mutually exclusive, but interdependent. As the delegates depart the Swiss Alps, they leave with a clear message: Indonesia is no longer merely a destination for capital, but a source of leadership. Under Prabowo, the nation has found its voice—not just as a good neighbour, but as a guiding light for a more equitable global order.

[Bahasa]