The Two Rivers of Justice in Indonesian Papua

The region was formally integrated into Indonesia following the controversial 1969 “Act of Free Choice”. Since then it has been marked by persistent demands for self-determination, human rights concerns and deeply rooted grievances about racism, land dispossession and political marginalisation. The 2001 Special Autonomy Law (OTSUS) was meant to resolve these issues by devolving authority to provincial government, but two decades on many Papuans view it as a failed promise.

For dispute resolution practitioners, Indonesian Papua presents a complex picture: robust customary (adat) systems of justice – centred on elders, kinship and the spiritual significance of land – operate in parallel with a centralised state system of courts, police and administrative law. Understanding these “two rivers” of law is essential for any meaningful engagement with Papuan communities.

Across many Papuan communities, elders’ councils and traditional leaders play a central role. In Sentani and Jayapura, for example, the Ondoafi or Ondofolo exercises genealogical and spiritual authority over land, social order and ritual life. Their legitimacy derives from ancestral connection to the land and they act as key mediators in inter-group disputes.

Customary processes are often highly ritualised. Conflicts are addressed through musyawarah (deliberation) and peace ceremonies such as bakar batu (stone-cooking feast), where the community gathers to witness apology, restitution and reconciliation. Restorative payments – including the practice of bayar kepala, literally “paying for the head” – compensate for serious harms and allow relationships to be re-balanced.

• Justice is community-centred: disputes implicate kin groups and must be resolved collectively, not privately.
• Outcomes focus on restoring harmony through restitution and ceremony, not on incarceration or abstract legal rights.
• Traditional leaders’ authority is spiritual as well as social; failure to comply risks not only social sanctions but spiritual misfortune.

The 1945 Constitution (Article 18B(2)) and OTSUS formally recognise “customary law communities” and their rights. In practice, however, communities must satisfy demanding administrative criteria to have their existence and territories formally recognised. During this period of limbo, they are vulnerable to concessions being granted over their lands.

Courts sometimes affirm adat rights, as in the Bapuli case, where a Dayak community member accused of theft was acquitted on the basis that he had harvested palm oil from trees he planted on his own customary land. In other cases, such as the Bongku prosecution, judges have dismissed adat claims without careful inquiry, prioritising company concession rights. At a macro level, the state’s failure to establish the promised Truth and Reconciliation Commission under OTSUS leaves serious human rights violations unaddressed.

• Recognition without effective implementation creates a “stumbling block” that undermines trust in state institutions.
• Land and resource disputes reveal fundamentally different value systems: communal, spiritual understandings of land versus capitalist, extractive logics.
• Legal pluralism in Papua is not a tidy division of labour; it is a contested space where power, identity and justice are constantly renegotiated.

Practitioners must recognise that disputes are rarely purely individual: they touch kin groups, community identity and relationships to land. Mediation that focuses only on individual parties and private conversations can miss the true scope of the conflict. Land is not just property but a spiritual and genealogical map of the community; treating it as a simple asset risks undermining trust.

Adaptive strategies include involving respected community leaders as co- mediators or advisors; allowing narrative and storytelling to address historical grievances; incorporating ritual and ceremony where appropriate; and explicitly re-negotiating concepts such as neutrality and confidentiality for a collectivist context. Above all, mediators should co-design processes with participants rather than imposing a fixed model imported from elsewhere.

• Work with, not around, traditional authority – engage Ondoafis and elders as partners in designing the process.
• Create space for ceremony, apology and shared meals as part of resolution, not as optional extras.
• Be alert to historical trauma and current power imbalances, especially where state institutions or corporations are parties to the dispute.