The Right to Protest in the Context of the G20 summit in Bali

---

The Right to Protest in the Context of the G20 summit in Bali

With the G20 Summit underway in Bali, controversy erupts. The YLBHI (Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia), an Indonesian human rights organisation, recently hosted a meeting in a villa located in Sanur, Bali, with the intent to “respond to G20, which presented many conflicts and criminalisation”. However, the group meeting was disbanded by a mob of people who claimed to be security officers, yet wore no uniforms nor items that would identify them as such. The reason for the disbandment was due to a “provincial policy that limits public events during the G20 Summit”. However, this claim is disputed as the group argued their meeting was held 20 kilometres from the restricted area. Several members of the group were even restricted from leaving the villa, as quoted from CNN: “Para staf YLBHI sempat ditahan untuk tidak boleh keluar vila“. 

Members present during the incident were told to surrender their identification cards, laptops and phones to the “pecalang”, Bali’s traditional security force. The act itself stems from a general restriction of public activities due to the G20 summit in popular areas including Kuta and Denpasar have been restricted as they are among the list of locations in which the G20 summit will be held. The local Balinese authorities are currently investigating the incident, with the Spokesman of the Balinese police offering a statement that the disbandment were conducted by “pecalang” unaffiliated with local law enforcement .

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is an international legal document that details the rights and obligations that states must protect concerning human rights. As per its obligation, the Indonesian government is bound to ensure the protection of the provisions found within the treaty. Thus, the main legal issue that must be addressed is whether the disbandment of the meeting should be considered a violation of the members’ human rights. Such right is protected under Article 21 of the ICCPR, wherein it states:

“The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

The actions of the YLBHI can be recognized as being an action of peaceful assembly as they sought to gather in order to display their views for legal rights, therefore article 21 can be used. In order to see if their assembly is legal, the article states the criteria that it needs to be: 

Under the scope of the article, the meeting conducted by YLBHI can be recognised as being an ‘action of peaceful assembly’ as they sought to display their views on legal rights. Nevertheless, for such an assembly to be admissible, the article provides the following criteria:

1. In conformity with the law;
2. Necessary in a democratic society;
3. In the interest of national security, public safety and order, protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Firstly, when assessing the first point of the criteria, it is important if there was legislation which prohibited the conduct. With the arrival of the G20 Summit in Bali, a law was introduced by local law enforcement to restrict activities in Kuta, South Kuta, Denpasar. However, as mentioned previously, the YLBHI have kept their activities in Sanur, which falls outside of the restricted areas. Thus, the disbandment by the pecalang did not conform to existing legislation. 

Secondly, For the second point, it can be argued that breaking up a peaceful assembly itself can be regarded as unnecessary in a democratic society where people should be able to express their values. This is because, one of the values enshrined in a democratic society is the freedom of expression and speech. Nevertheless, it is unclear that the disruption of the meeting was done in the interest of maintaining public order and national security. The monumentality of the G20 summit meant that Indonesia – as a host – must ensure that the event runs smoothly whilst maintaining the safety and livelihood of some of the most powerful figures in the world. Ultimately, this means that public disorder must be controlled. Without such restrictive measures, the safety of the attendants will be jeopardised, disrupting national security and interests. 

However, the case-law “Kivenmaa v Finland”, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) states that public gatherings conforming to Art. 21 ICCPR can be dispersed if “the parties looking to act in a public gathering are given notification beforehand that they are not allowed to protest in a certain place and time”. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to argue that the group was notified beforehand that their meeting in Sanur could have consequences, especially since they were acting with the knowledge that the area that they chose fell outside of the areas listed in the law introduced by law enforcement.

Whether the incident was in essence lawful or not, no one can deny that the G20 Summit must be fitted with great protection. However, the disbandment of the meeting – no matter its justification – is legally unlawful based on the state’s obligation to existing international law (ICCPR). The matter of its proportionality is also in question as the actions of the pecalang in the detainment of the members’ electronics can be seen as exceeding its original aim – that of disbanding the meeting.

---