Another suspect named as wiretap scandal rocks Indonesia

Indonesia’s authorities are investigating alleged unauthorized interception of President Prabowo Subianto’s telephone conversations. The case matters because the suspected operation may have involved senior security officials and could have targeted other public figures. Amnesty International called for the full impact to be investigated.

The newly named suspect is Slamet Uliandi, who heads Bareskrim’s Information and Communications Technology Division. Investigators allege that he approved a request to delete wiretap records in early October. They say the deletion was intended to conceal evidence and erase traces of the operation. Uliandi was not detained because he is recovering from a stroke.

Three senior generals had already been detained, including Listyo Sigit Prabowo, who became Prabowo’s chief of staff last month. The investigation concerns alleged surveillance between 2025 and 2026, while Listyo was still national police chief. Authorities have not yet publicly disclosed the operation’s full motive or all possible targets.

Wiretapping is the secret interception or monitoring of telephone conversations. It can sometimes be permitted under legal rules, such as an authorized investigation. But intercepting a president’s calls without the required authority is unauthorized surveillance because it intrudes into private communications outside those limits.

In this case, police allege that officials ran an unauthorized wiretapping operation between 2025 and 2026. The alleged targets may have included President Prabowo Subianto, cabinet officials, politicians, journalists, civil society leaders, and business executives. The article does not state whether any court approved the surveillance.

That uncertainty is central to the investigation. Authorities are examining who ordered or controlled the operation and why it occurred. Amnesty International said officials must disclose who else may have been targeted and investigate the operation’s full impact. The case therefore concerns both individual privacy and the boundaries of state power.

The investigation identifies four suspects in its main count: three senior generals had been detained, and Slamet Uliandi was named as the fourth suspect. The article also identifies two other detained officials, Sonta Nasution and Eko Hadi Santoso. Thus, the article names more than four officials connected to detention or suspicion, but it specifically calls Uliandi the fourth suspect.

The security deployment was also large. Authorities sent more than 20,000 troops to Jakarta. Separately, 6,770 police and military personnel were deployed to secure a court hearing where former president Joko Widodo was called to testify in a defamation trial.

That hearing was unrelated to the wiretapping investigation. It concerned allegations that Widodo used a fake university diploma, which he denied. The figures show the wider security pressure surrounding events in Jakarta, while the investigation continues to examine the alleged surveillance operation and its chain of command.

Wiretap records can show when surveillance occurred, whose communications were intercepted, and which officials accessed or authorized the material. Deleting those records can therefore obstruct an investigation. It may prevent authorities from reconstructing the operation and identifying its chain of command.

Police allege that Slamet Uliandi approved a request in early October to delete wiretap records. Suhermanto, Bareskrim’s director of cybercrime, said the purpose was to conceal evidence and erase traces of the operation. Uliandi served on the supervisory board of the Monitoring Centre, a wiretapping unit.

Those allegations do not establish guilt, but they explain why the deletion is treated as potentially serious conduct. Uliandi was named a suspect but not detained because he is recovering from a stroke. Investigators still need to establish who requested the deletion, who approved it, and what records were lost.

When officials surveil people without authorization, they may violate privacy protections and misuse state power. The article says the alleged operation could constitute a serious human-rights violation. It also raises concerns that surveillance could be used to intimidate critics and weaken civil liberties.

The possible target list makes the concern broader than one president. Allegations have surfaced that cabinet officials, politicians, journalists, civil society leaders, and business executives were also subjected to unauthorized surveillance. Amnesty International’s Indonesia director, Usman Hamid, said authorities must disclose who else may have been targeted and investigate the operation’s full impact.

Legal consequences depend on Indonesia’s investigation and applicable law, which the article does not specify. Authorities have already named suspects and detained officials. Investigators are also being urged to examine every possible line of command, including whether directives could have originated with former president Joko Widodo. The case may therefore affect accountability and public trust.

The investigation has drawn attention because Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo moved from political rivalry to cooperation. Prabowo lost two presidential races to Widodo, then aligned with him and campaigned as his successor. Widodo backed Prabowo’s successful 2024 presidential bid.

Prabowo chose Widodo’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, as his running mate. The choice fueled concerns about a growing political dynasty in Indonesia’s young democracy. Listyo Sigit Prabowo, now Prabowo’s chief of staff, previously served as national police chief under Widodo and was among those detained.

The relationship between the two leaders has since faced increased scrutiny amid signs of a growing rift. Retired General Oegroseno urged investigators to examine all possible lines of command, including whether directives came from Widodo. Widodo has not been implicated in the investigation and said people should respect the legal process and await its outcome.

Independent courts and investigations matter because they can test evidence without simply following political instructions. They help establish whether surveillance was authorized, who directed it, and whether officials misused their powers. Clear limits also protect private communications and prevent security agencies from operating above the law.

The Indonesia case shows why these safeguards are important. Police allege that officials intercepted communications and later sought to delete wiretap records. Investigators are being urged to examine every possible line of command, including any possible direction from former president Joko Widodo. A court hearing for Widodo was separately secured by thousands of personnel, although that trial concerns another case.

The investigation’s credibility will depend on transparent findings and lawful procedures. Amnesty International said authorities should identify other possible targets and assess the operation’s impact. If officials are held accountable, institutions may reinforce civil liberties. If the case is not fully examined, public trust could suffer.