Two key witnesses retract statements in high-profile drug case involving former police officers

In a dramatic twist, two key witnesses in the Batam narcotics trial have backtracked on their original testimonies, throwing the prosecution’s case into turmoil. The trial, which involves former Barelang Police Narcotics Unit chief Kompol Satria Nanda and his colleagues, is now shrouded in even more controversy. With both witnesses insisting their new statements are the “real” ones, serious questions arise about the credibility of the initial investigation and whether justice is truly being served.

The courtroom at Batam District Court on February 27, 2025, was the stage for a shocking reversal. Rinaldi Manurung and Muhammad Ambran, both officers from the Riau Islands Police, had initially provided statements in the Berita Acara Pemeriksaan (BAP), incriminating the defendants. But in front of Presiding Judge Tiwik and Justices Douglas and Andi Bayu, they did a complete U-turn, declaring that their current courtroom testimonies—not their previous sworn statements—should be considered the truth.

When pressed, Rinaldi, the arresting officer, doubled down, saying, “I stand by my testimony in court. That’s the truth.” His confident declaration raised immediate concerns about the reliability of the BAP, especially since his previous statement had directly implicated the accused.

Background of the Allegations

The case began in August 2024 when allegations surfaced that members of the Barelang Police Narcotics Unit, including Kompol Satria Nanda, were involved in the unauthorized sale of seized narcotics. An internal investigation led to the dismissal of Nanda and two other officers in September 2024. The current trial seeks to determine the criminal culpability of the accused officers.

Police Orders or Personal Conviction?

Things took an even stranger turn when Rinaldi admitted under questioning that his earlier testimony was not entirely based on firsthand knowledge. Instead, it was given under instructions from his superior, the Deputy Director of Narcotics at Polda Kepri.

Rinaldi also confessed that he had no real insight into the alleged 1-kilogram methamphetamine transaction supposedly involving the defendants. That information, he claimed, came not from his own investigation, but from the “findings” of other officers.

The original report was built on secondhand information, yet was strong enough to put multiple officers on trial.

Another Witness, Another Retraction

Not to be outdone, Muhammad Ambran, the second key witness, followed suit. He, too, distanced himself from his previous police statement, opting to “go with what was said in court.”

Pressed about the evidence found at the time of the arrest—including methamphetamine and mobile phones—Ambran offered little clarification, saying he “wasn’t involved in the follow-up.” His vague responses only deepened doubts about the entire case.

An Investigation Full of Gaps

With both key witnesses effectively disowning their initial statements, defense lawyers wasted no time in highlighting glaring inconsistencies. If their BAP testimonies weren’t valid, what does that say about the integrity of the entire investigation?

Even more eyebrow-raising was Rinaldi’s admission that the police report had been drafted on orders from his superior. That revelation immediately called into question whether this was a legitimate case or a scripted takedown.

For defense attorneys, the retractions were a significant win. Indra Sakti, representing Shigit Sarwo Edhi, stated that the contradictions were a clear indication that the case against the accused was weak and manipulated.

Courtroom Reactions and Next Steps

The courtroom was abuzz following the witnesses’ retractions. Observers noted the prosecution’s visible frustration, while the defense appeared bolstered by the turn of events. The presiding judge has called for a recess to allow both sides to reassess their positions in light of the new developments. The trial is set to resume on March 3, 2025, with further witness testimonies and cross-examinations expected.

The sudden reversal of key testimonies has thrown the Batam narcotics trial into chaos. The police’s handling of the case now faces serious scrutiny, as does the legitimacy of evidence used to charge ex-Police Narcotics Unit Chief Satria Nanda and his men. If this trial was meant to showcase a crackdown on police corruption, it’s certainly not doing so in the way authorities hoped. Instead, it’s exposing cracks in how investigations are conducted and whether they hold up under real judicial scrutiny.

Sources: Batam Info (2025), Pikiran Rakyat Media (2025)

Keywords: Batam, Narcotics Trial, Police Corruption, Witness Retraction, Legal Controversy