Ade Armando and Permadi Arya Face Police Report Over Edited Jusuf Kalla Sermon Accused of Incitement

Jakarta, Indonesia – Prominent public figures Ade Armando and Permadi Arya have been formally reported to the Jakarta Metro Police on allegations of incitement and provocation. The complaint stems from their dissemination of edited video snippets of a sermon delivered by Indonesia’s 10th and 12th Vice President, Jusuf Kalla (JK), at the Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) mosque some time ago. The report, filed by the Maluku Advocate Professionals Alliance (APAM), highlights the growing tensions surrounding digital content and its potential for misinterpretation and public discord, particularly concerning sensitive religious and political discourse in Indonesia.

The formal complaint was registered with the Jakarta Metro Police under the number LP/B/2767/IV/2026/SPKT/POLDA METRO JAYA. Paman Nurlette, a representative of APAM and the designated complainant, informed reporters on Monday, April 20, 2026, that the alliance had approached the police to file a report concerning alleged criminal acts of incitement and provocation. According to Nurlette, these acts were purportedly committed by Ade Armando and Permadi Arya through their respective social media platforms. Ade Armando, a well-known academic and commentator, allegedly uploaded the contentious snippets to his YouTube channel, Cokro TV, while Permadi Arya, a prominent social media personality often referred to as Abu Janda, shared them on his Facebook account.

Chronology of Events Leading to the Report

The controversy began following a sermon delivered by Jusuf Kalla at the UGM mosque. While the exact date of the sermon is not specified in the initial report, it is understood to have occurred during the Ramadan period. Kalla’s address, according to his later clarification, focused on the theme of peace, a topic he has extensively engaged with throughout his distinguished career, particularly in mediating conflicts within Indonesia.

Subsequently, edited versions of this sermon began circulating online, primarily through the platforms managed by Ade Armando and Permadi Arya. These truncated videos, APAM alleges, presented Kalla’s statements out of context, leading to widespread public misunderstanding and negative reactions. The content of these edited clips, according to Nurlette, caused significant "commotion and uproar" in the public sphere, fostering negative perceptions, resentment, and animosity. Nurlette firmly believes that had the full, unedited video of Kalla’s sermon been published, the public would not have been "contaminated" or "provoked" by its content.

The mounting public reaction and the perceived misrepresentation of Kalla’s speech prompted APAM to take legal action. On April 20, 2026, the alliance officially filed the police report, seeking an investigation into the actions of Armando and Arya.

Jusuf Kalla’s Clarification and Defense

Prior to the formal police report, Jusuf Kalla himself addressed the controversy surrounding his UGM sermon. Speaking from his residence in South Jakarta on Saturday, April 18, 2026, Kalla categorically denied that his statements constituted religious blasphemy. He reiterated that the UGM event was a standard Ramadan sermon, held in a mosque, and he was invited specifically to speak on the theme of peace.

Kalla explained that his sermon delved into the concepts of peace and conflict, drawing upon real-world examples from both international and domestic arenas. He specifically referenced the protracted communal conflicts in Poso and Ambon, regions where he played a crucial role as a mediator in achieving peace agreements. During these conflicts, Kalla noted, many combatants on both sides believed they were fighting a religious war, with the conviction that those who died in battle would achieve martyrdom – "syahid" for Muslims and "martir" for Christians.

"He thought this was a religious war. Whoever died would be a syahid for Islam. Christians called it a martir," Kalla explained. He clarified that when speaking in a mosque, he primarily used the term "syahid," but acknowledged the conceptual similarity with "martir." "The meaning is almost the same, syahid and martir are almost the same. The only difference is the method," he added. He elaborated that both terms essentially refer to dying in defense of one’s religion.

Crucially, Kalla emphasized that his discourse was not about religious dogma or ideology. Instead, he aimed to highlight the absurdity and tragedy of people from different faiths killing each other, questioning whether any religion truly advocates for such violence. "I was not talking about religious dogma, I was not talking about religious ideology, no. About why they kill each other? Why do they kill each other? Is there [an order in] Islam and Christianity? No. So they all violate religious teachings," he asserted, underscoring that the conflicts in Poso and Ambon arose from a misinterpretation and violation of religious tenets, not from the religions themselves. His explanation aimed to provide the full context, demonstrating that his intention was to promote understanding and peace, not to diminish or misrepresent religious concepts.

Legal Basis and Evidence Presented

The APAM’s report against Ade Armando and Permadi Arya cites alleged violations of Article 48 juncto Article 32 of the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law, and/or Article 243 of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

• Article 48 juncto Article 32 of the ITE Law: This section of Indonesia’s controversial ITE Law pertains to the unauthorized alteration, damage, or interference with electronic information or documents. In this context, APAM’s argument is likely that by editing and selectively publishing parts of Kalla’s speech, Armando and Arya essentially "altered" the original electronic information (the full video), thereby changing its meaning and intent. The ITE Law has been a subject of extensive debate and criticism in Indonesia, often viewed as a tool that can be used to stifle free speech and criminalize online expression, particularly due to its broad interpretations of defamation, hate speech, and, in this case, alteration of information. Critics argue that its provisions can be easily misused to target dissenting voices or those who disseminate content that offends powerful figures or groups, even if such content is presented as commentary or criticism.

• Article 243 of the Criminal Code (KUHP): This article addresses incitement (penghasutan). It criminalizes acts that publicly incite others to commit a criminal offense, to resist lawful authority, or to act against public order. APAM’s claim is that the edited videos, by provoking negative views, hatred, and animosity, constitute incitement to public disorder or other harmful actions. Proving incitement often requires demonstrating a clear intent to provoke and a direct link between the incitement and subsequent actions, which can be challenging in digital contexts where interpretation and spread are complex.

As evidence, APAM has submitted several items to the police, including the complete, unedited video of Jusuf Kalla’s sermon, the specific edited video clips uploaded by Ade Armando to his Cokro TV YouTube channel, and the edited video snippets shared by Permadi Arya on his Facebook account. These pieces of evidence will be crucial in the police investigation to determine whether the alleged alteration of information and incitement indeed took place, and whether the actions of Armando and Arya meet the legal thresholds for criminal offenses under the specified articles.

The Role of APAM and Jusuf Kalla’s Stance

Nurlette explicitly clarified that the report filed by APAM is an independent initiative and not made on behalf of Jusuf Kalla. "It is not from Mr. Jusuf Kalla; we saw the mens rea [guilty mind/intent] from the video snippets, which led us to file the report," Nurlette stated. This distinction is significant, as it indicates that APAM perceives a deliberate intent to mislead or provoke through the edited content, independent of whether Kalla himself feels personally aggrieved enough to press charges. This approach suggests a concern for public order and accurate information dissemination, rather than a personal vendetta by the former Vice President.

Jusuf Kalla’s public clarification of his sermon’s context, while not directly supporting the police report, indirectly reinforces APAM’s argument that the edited videos presented a distorted view of his original message. His detailed explanation serves as an important counter-narrative to the potentially inflammatory interpretations that arose from the truncated clips.

Ade Armando and Permadi Arya: Figures of Controversy

Ade Armando and Permadi Arya are both prominent figures in Indonesia’s digital landscape, known for their often provocative and polarizing commentary on social, religious, and political issues.

• Ade Armando: An academic from the University of Indonesia, Armando is a vocal proponent of secularism and pluralism. He frequently engages in debates on religious conservatism, political ideologies, and social justice. His YouTube channel, Cokro TV, serves as a platform for his opinions and analyses, which often challenge mainstream narratives and religious interpretations, making him a frequent target of criticism and legal complaints. He has been involved in multiple legal cases related to alleged defamation and blasphemy in the past, reflecting the sensitive nature of public discourse in Indonesia, particularly concerning religion.

• Permadi Arya (Abu Janda): Also known as Abu Janda, Permadi Arya is a social media influencer and activist who gained prominence for his outspoken views, often defending moderate Islam and criticizing radicalism. Like Armando, he is a controversial figure, frequently involved in online disputes and accused of hate speech or provocation, particularly when discussing ethnic and religious issues. His large following on platforms like Facebook amplifies his messages, making his content highly impactful, for better or worse, on public opinion.

The involvement of these two figures in the current controversy is consistent with their public personas as commentators who frequently navigate the thin line between free expression and what others perceive as offensive or inciting content.

Broader Implications for Freedom of Speech and Digital Ethics

This case underscores several critical issues pertinent to Indonesia’s evolving digital landscape and its commitment to freedom of expression:

1. The Ambiguity of the ITE Law: The continued application of the ITE Law in cases involving online content highlights its inherent ambiguities and the ongoing debate surrounding its potential for misuse. Legal experts and civil society organizations have long advocated for its revision, arguing that its broad language can stifle legitimate criticism and lead to self-censorship. This case will likely reignite calls for clearer definitions of "alteration of information" and "incitement" within the law.

2. Context in Digital Communication: The core of APAM’s complaint rests on the removal of context through editing. In the age of viral content and short attention spans, the ability to present information out of context, whether intentionally or unintentionally, poses a significant threat to informed public discourse. This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities of content creators and disseminators, especially when dealing with sensitive statements from public figures.

3. The Power of Social Media Influencers: Ade Armando and Permadi Arya, as influential figures, demonstrate the immense power that digital platforms and their users wield in shaping public opinion. Their ability to reach a wide audience means that content they share, even if edited, can quickly gain traction and influence perceptions, potentially leading to real-world consequences, as alleged in this police report.

4. Religious Sensitivity in Indonesia: Indonesia, as the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation with a significant Christian minority and other faiths, maintains a delicate balance in religious harmony. Discussions involving religious concepts, even in the context of peace-building as Jusuf Kalla intended, are inherently sensitive. Any perceived misrepresentation or provocative commentary can quickly escalate into widespread outrage, emphasizing the need for cautious and responsible communication.

5. Police Role in Mediating Digital Disputes: The Jakarta Metro Police’s investigation into this matter will set a precedent for how digital content-related complaints, particularly those involving public figures and allegations of incitement, are handled. The outcome will be closely watched by legal practitioners, media observers, and the public, as it could influence future interpretations and enforcement of the ITE Law.

Moving Forward

The police investigation will now proceed with examining the evidence provided by APAM and potentially summoning Ade Armando and Permadi Arya for questioning. Both individuals will have the opportunity to present their defense, which may involve arguing that their actions fall within the bounds of free speech or that there was no intent to incite or provoke.

This case is more than just a legal dispute; it is a critical test of Indonesia’s legal framework concerning digital content, the responsibilities of public figures in the digital sphere, and the ongoing struggle to balance freedom of expression with the prevention of hate speech and incitement in a highly polarized online environment. The resolution of this report will undoubtedly contribute to the broader discourse on media ethics, legal reform, and the future of public communication in Indonesia.