Central Papua Election: Reasons Behind Recapitulation Announcement Delay

the KPU’s (Respondent) legal counsel Rezky Panji P. M. Hasibuan testifying at the examination hearing for Case No. 309/PHPU.GUB-XXIII/2025 on the Central Papua regent election results dispute, Friday (1/31/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Central Papua Election Commission (KPU) as Respondent clarified that the delay in announcing the vote count recapitulation for the 2024 governor election was not caused by structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations. This statement was made by the Respondent at the examination hearing for Case No. 309/PHPU.GUB-XXIII/2025 on the 2024 regional head election results dispute. This hearing was held on Friday, January 31, 2025, to hear testimonies from the Respondent, the Relevant Party, and Bawaslu (Election Commission Body), as well as validate evidence.

The hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah on panel 1. In this case, the Petitioners are Candidate Pair 01 Wempi Wetipo and Agustinus Anggaibak, while the Relevant Party is Candidate Pair 03 Meki Nawipa and Deinas Geley.

The Central Papua KPU stated that the delay in announcing the vote recapitulation was caused by various factors in several regions, including weather conditions, security issues, and riots. According to the Respondent, these reasons were documented in the minutes of the vote count results and had been coordinated with the Central KPU.

"We have coordinated and supervised the delay through correspondence and consultation between the Respondent and the Central KPU," stated the Respondent's legal counsel Rezky Panji Perdana Martua Hasibuan.

The Respondent affirmed that there were no issues regarding the vote acquisition in the election, as the majority of candidate pairs had signed the minutes. By signing the minutes, the Respondent considered the candidate pairs to have accepted the election results.

"Witnesses from Candidate Pairs 01, 03, and 04 have signed the minutes, confirming the vote acquisition results as stated in KPU Decree No. 461 of 2024," said Rezky.

The Relevant Party also addressed the Petitioners’ argument linking the delay in announcing the vote recapitulation results to TSM violations.

The Relevant Party argued that the Petitioners contradicted their own claim by citing the minutes, which documented a special incident—the delay in recapitulation in three districts: Intan Jaya, Paniai, and Puncak Jaya. "As a result, the provincial KPU took over the recapitulation process at the regency level for Puncak Jaya Regency," stated the Relevant Party in their official statement.

Regarding vote acquisition, the Relevant Party addressed the Petitioners’ claim that their vote count was low in areas using the noken* or ikat method. The Relevant Party asserted that the noken voting system was implemented in accordance with applicable regulations, including being conducted on the same day as the general voting in Central Papua, November 27, 2024. They also emphasized that the process followed the proper procedures, from agreement to staged recapitulation.

"The agreement is documented in the KPU vote count and recapitulation forms at each stage, from C- results, D-results district, D-results regency, to D-results province forms," stated the Relevant Party's legal counsel Hardian Tuasamu.

Despite the delay, the Central Papua gubernatorial election supervision resulted in only one recommendation. This was stated by the Central Papua Bawaslu as the testifier in this case.

The recommendation issued by Central Papua Bawaslu for the election concerns the verification of vote acquisition in Puncak Regency. However, the Central Papua KPU has yet to implement this recommendation.

"The recommendation is for the provincial KPU to match or correct the votes regarding the reduction of the governor's votes in Puncak Regency. However, the KPU did not follow up," said Central Papua Bawaslu member Yonas Yanampa.

In addition to one recommendation, the Central Papua Bawaslu received 22 reports during the election, one of which has been followed up.

Also read: Central Papua Regional Election: Delay in Vote Recapitulation Announcement

At the previous hearing, the Petitioners claimed that the Respondent's delay was a form of a structured, systematic, and massive violation. The Respondent was also reported to have stayed at the same hotel as another candidate at the Mahavira Nabire Hotel. During that time, the Respondent, the Central Papua KPU, was conducting a plenary meeting on the results of the vote recapitulation for Puncak and Puncak Jaya Regencies.

The Petitioners also claimed that the votes gained in the areas with a one-man-one-vote system were high. However, in areas that used the noken system, such as Mimika and Nabire, the vote acquisition was low. The petitioners also argued to be blocked during the campaign period, specifically in Dogiyai, Deiyai, and Paniai Regencies. The Petitioners even claimed to have been asked for Rp1 billion at the time.

Petitions for the Central Papua election results dispute were also filed by two other candidate pairs, i.e., Candidate Pair 04 Willem Wandik and Aloisius Giyai (Case No. 295/PHPU.GUB-XXIII/2025) and Candidate Pair 02 Natalis Tabuni and Titus Natkime (Case No. 308/PHPU.GUB-XXIII/2025).

(*) The noken voting system is carried out by communities in Papua, either through public agreement on vote allocation or through the delegation of votes to a tribal leader.

News

Central Papua Election: Reasons Behind Recapitulation Announcement Delay