Bawaslu’s representative Yulimince Nawipa testifying in examination hearing for Case No. 298/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the regent election results dispute before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani, Wednesday (1/22/2025). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Paniai Bawaslu (Election Supervisory Body) faced internal division during the Paniai regent election results dispute hearing at the Constitutional Court (MK), with a conflict between Stepanus Gobai as the chairperson and Yulimince Nawipa and Manfret Dogopia as members. This conflict arose when Stepanus Gobai issued a recommendation to cancel the regency-level recapitulation plenary meeting without involving Yulimince Nawipa and Manfret Dogopia through the required plenary mechanism.

"[This cancellation is] unbeknownst to the two commissioners (members)," said Yulimince at the hearing to hear testimonies from the Respondent, the Relevant Party, and Bawaslu for Case No. 298/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, January 22, 2025.

The recommendation issued by the Paniai Bawaslu chairperson called for the immediate cancellation of the regency-level recapitulation plenary meeting. This was based on the fact that the Paniai Bawaslu had not received the D-results forms as comparative benchmark data. The recommendation also highlighted that the Paniai KPU had not provided an opportunity for witnesses and that the recapitulation in 15 districts did not align with the community agreements at the polling station/village level.

However, Yulimince argued that every recommendation issued must be agreed upon collectively through a plenary meeting with all Bawaslu members present. As a result, the two Paniai Bawaslu members issued a letter clarifying the chairperson’s recommendation to cancel the plenary meeting. Their clarification emphasized that the recommendation to cancel the plenary meeting was not based on the provisions in the Bawaslu regulation concerning the supervision of vote counting and acquisition recapitulation, violation handling, or plenary meeting procedures.

Yulimince confirmed that he and another Paniai Bawaslu member attended the plenary meeting of the regency-level vote acquisition recapitulation held by the Paniai KPU. He pointed out that the Bawaslu recommendation should have been based on a report, finding, or objection from the meeting participants concerning the vote counting process. Bawaslu was further required to hold a plenary meeting to review and examine the report or objection in order to reach a mutual agreement.

Stepanus Gobai defended his decision to issue recommendations without involving the two members through a plenary meeting. "It's hard to coordinate!" he said at one of the courtrooms.

In fact, the statement from Bawaslu presented at the hearing was not signed by Stepanus Gobai but only by the two other members. In response, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) stated that the Court would review and consider the incident.

Furthermore, regarding the recommendation to cancel the plenary meeting, the Paniai Election Commission (KPU) responded with a legal review. The KPU Paniai essentially rejected the request to postpone the plenary recapitulation meeting, citing the absence of a formal legal basis for the cancellation.

"The recommendations issued are personal in nature and on behalf of the Paniai Bawaslu, while the Bawaslu decision is collective, collegial, and not individual," said the Respondent's legal counsel A. Habib Amanatullah Rahdar.

Meanwhile, Candidate Pair 1 Yan Piet Nawipa-Ham Yogi (Relevant Party) argued that the Bawaslu recommendation to cancel the plenary meeting was issued unilaterally, without a plenary meeting being held.

"[This recommendation] was issued unilaterally by the Paniai Bawaslu chairperson without going through a plenary meeting mechanism," said the Relevant Party’s legal counsel Hardian Tuasamu .

At the previous hearing, this case was filed by Candidate Pair Number 03 Nason Uti and Jhon Deki Yogi, who questioned the recommendation of the Paniai Bawaslu to cancel the plenary meeting of the district-level vote acquisition recapitulation, which was not implemented by the Paniai KPU.

The Petitioners requested the Court to annul the Paniai KPU Decree No. 48 of 2024 on the certification of the Paniai regent election vote count recapitulation dated December 14, 2024. They proposed a corrected vote acquisition count as follows: Candidate Pair 01 Yan Piet Nawipa-Ham Yogi with 23,082 votes, Candidate Pair 02 Rooby Kayame-Hengki Kudiai with 17,395 votes, Candidate Pair 03 Nason Uti-Jhon Deki Yogi with 43,364 votes, Candidate Pair 04 Thomas Yeimo-Yeri Adii with 18,271 votes, and Candidate Pair 05 Ottopianus Gobai-Deki Nawipa with 7,316 votes. Alternatively, the Petitioners requested that the Court order the Paniai KPU to conduct a revote in all polling stations/villages/districts in the regency and direct the Central KPU to replace all commissioners of the Paniai KPU.

Author  : Mimi Kartika
Editor   : Tiara Agustina
Translator     : Nazila Rikhusshuba/FS

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---