Prabowo Pushes Criminal Action Over Wildfires as 95 Firms Face Police Probes

Indonesia's president has told the national police to pursue companies suspected of starting wildfires, and to use criminal law rather than administrative penalties alone. A legal expert says the instruction shows where forest and land policy is heading, and it carries lessons for anyone holding Indonesian assets or dealing with Indonesian counterparties.

What the president ordered

At a meeting with senior officials in Jakarta on 16 September, President Prabowo Subianto urged Indonesian National Police (Polri) Chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo to mobilise police resources to identify criminal elements in wildfire cases. The instruction covers cases involving corporations in Sumatra and Kalimantan.

As reported by ANTARA, the president put it plainly:

“Police chief, I want you to exert all-out efforts, mobilizing all agencies under your command to thoroughly investigate such cases so that we can take action accordingly.”

He stressed zero tolerance for wildfire offences. Citing police reports, he noted that 95 companies were under investigation on suspicion of causing wildfires in several regions. The word that matters there is suspicion: the source does not say that any company has been charged, tried or found liable.

An expert reads it as policy, not rhetoric

Romli Atmasasmita, a legal expert at Padjadjaran University, commented in a statement received by ANTARA on Monday. In his words, the directive “is not merely rhetorical; it sends a strong signal about the government's future policy direction in protecting Indonesia's forests and ecosystems.”

His reading has several strands:

• The directive assures the public that enforcement against wildfire-related crimes will proceed without interruption.
• It reflects the president's confidence in Polri's ability to uncover the facts around alleged corporate involvement.
• Strong political will is essential if responses are to go beyond administrative sanctions, with potential criminal charges pursued where warranted.
• Consistent enforcement is crucial to strengthening protection for forests and natural ecosystems.

This is one academic's interpretation, and it should be read as such. It is informed commentary on intent, not a forecast of outcomes.

Permits and prosecution, not one or the other

The most consequential detail is the pairing of sanctions. The president affirmed that the revocation of business permits should be accompanied by criminal prosecution if investigations uncover evidence of violations. In other words, losing a permit would not be treated as the end of the matter.

The distinction between administrative and criminal consequences is a real one for businesses. An administrative penalty is typically a cost to be absorbed. A criminal case is a different order of risk, because it can involve the company and individuals, and it takes time to resolve.

ANTARA's related coverage, going by its headlines, points to a wider government effort: an “all-out” probe into corporate forest fires, a review of the wildfire situation to determine a containment strategy, a report that hotspots have dropped, and a ministry urging vigilance through November because of El Nino. We have not reproduced details of those reports here, only what the main story states.

What this means for investors

The story concerns Sumatra and Kalimantan. It does not mention Lombok, and nothing in it is evidence of wildfire or enforcement risk in South Lombok. The relevance for investors is the direction of regulatory travel, and a few practical habits that follow from it.

• Enforcement posture. A stated presidential priority, backed by a reported 95 open corporate investigations, suggests that environmental compliance is being treated as a criminal matter, not just a licensing one.
• Permit status is a risk factor. If revocation can now come with prosecution, a counterparty's permits and compliance history deserve the same scrutiny as its balance sheet.
• Allegation is not finding. Investigations are not convictions. Investors should avoid drawing conclusions about named companies or sectors until the legal process produces outcomes.
• Diligence should be documentary. For property buyers, the equivalent discipline is checking certificates, ownership history, zoning and encumbrances before committing capital. Independent legal advisers such as TerraNusa Advisory, an advisory partner of HubLombok, work on exactly this kind of due diligence for foreign buyers.

The broader lesson is modest but useful. Rules that once looked negotiable can be enforced more firmly when the signal comes from the top, and buyers who have documented their position properly are better placed when that happens.

What to watch next

The open questions are practical ones. Will the 95 investigations turn into formal charges? Will permit revocations in fact be paired with prosecutions, as the president said they should be? And how will enforcement proceed as the dry-season warnings run through November? The source offers no answers yet, and we will not guess at them.

For now, the signal is clear even if the outcomes are not: Jakarta wants wildfire cases to end in accountability, and investors who track compliance closely will be better prepared for the next announcement.

Stay informed: subscribe to our free Lombok Briefing, published twice a month (the 1st and 15th), for analysis like this.