Aceh – Indonesia, There is something troubling about the PT Bumi Flora case in East Aceh. Twenty-five years after the bloody tragedy that killed dozens of residents, issues in the same area have exploded again in the form of an agrarian conflict.
On August 9, 2001, as many as 31 people were killed in a shooting at the PT Bumi Flora plantation, East Aceh. Seven people were reported injured and one person was missing. To this day, the incident remains an object of investigation by Komnas HAM as an alleged gross human rights violation. Even in 2025, Komnas HAM still stated that the investigation into the Bumi Flora case was incomplete.
Now, the issue enters a different face.
On September 28, 2026, the PT Bumi Flora area heated up again. A number of company facilities were reportedly vandalized and set on fire by a crowd. Several news reports linked the incident to an unresolved Land Cultivation Right (HGU) conflict. However, the motives and parties responsible for the arson still need to be proven through an investigative process.
This is where the state should stop viewing Bumi Flora as two separate, standalone matters.
The 2001 human rights tragedy and today’s agrarian conflict are indeed not identical events. However, both reveal the exact same problem: the state’s weak resolution of issues rooted in a region.
From human rights tragedy to land conflict
The 2001 tragedy must be placed within a human rights accountability framework. Komnas HAM is still conducting a pro justitia investigation into the incident. This means the state cannot close the book on Bumi Flora’s history simply because time has passed.
On the other hand, the HGU conflict involving PT Bumi Flora shows that the land issue remains unresolved as well.
A number of community groups and farmers are questioning the company’s control and HGU status. In fact, by 2026, the issue had been brought to various official forums, including public hearing sessions. Tensions then escalated again, culminating in damage and arson to company facilities on September 28, 2026.
Therefore, the question that must be asked is not only:
“Who set the fire?”
But also:
“Why has this agrarian conflict persisted for so long without a resolution deemed fair by all parties?”
The first question falls under criminal law enforcement. The second question belongs to the realm of agrarian reform.
Agrarian reform brings new hope for resolving land conflicts. The regulation is designed not only for land redistribution, but also to bring about structural changes in land tenure and agrarian governance.
More importantly, its institutional design provides space for the Agrarian Reform Implementation Agency (LPRA) to carry out functions of planning, execution, supervision, and agrarian conflict resolution.
If so, Bumi Flora should serve as one of the early tests: is agrarian reform truly capable of resolving long-standing conflicts, or does it merely generate new institutions and procedures?
Because an agrarian conflict is not settled simply by stating that a company holds an HGU.
Conversely, the existence of community claims does not automatically mean that all those claims are legally correct.
What is needed is a transparent agrarian audit.
The state must examine the history of land ownership, the legal basis for issuing the HGU, the boundaries of the land object, the community’s occupation status, the potential presence of customary (ulayat) land, spatial planning compliance, land utilization, and all administrative processes forming the basis of the land title.
HGU must be valid, but it must also be accountable
In a conflict like Bumi Flora, the law must not work piecemeal.
If the HGU is declared valid, the state must openly explain the legal basis to the public.
If problems are found in the issuance or implementation process of the HGU, the state must have the courage to make corrections according to legal mechanisms.
Similarly, the public must be positioned as legal subjects who hold the right to voice objections and access effective settlement mechanisms.
Thus, legal certainty must not be pitted against agrarian justice.
Legal certainty without examining the root of the conflict only has the potential to perpetuate it. On the other hand, justice without legal procedures can turn into unilateral action.
Do not let agrarian conflicts turn into horizontal conflicts
The burning of company facilities is a legal matter that must be processed based on evidence and criminal provisions. There can be no justification for violence or destruction in the name of agrarian struggle.
However, a security-only approach is also insufficient.
If the state only steps in when offices are burned, heavy equipment damaged, or crowds confront law enforcement, the state has actually arrived far too late.
The state should be present before the conflict reaches that point.
Therefore, resolving the Bumi Flora case requires three concurrent tracks:
First, the human rights track.
The investigation into the 2001 tragedy must be pursued seriously, including ensuring the rights of the victims and their families.
Second, the agrarian track.
The status and history of the HGU must be transparently audited involving affected communities, the government, land agencies, the company, and relevant independent institutions.
Third, the legal and security track.
Every act of violence, arson, vandalism, or intimidation must be handled according to the law without stripping the public of their right to convey demands peacefully.
Bumi Flora is a test for the Agrarian Reform Law
Bumi Flora requires more than just statements that the government will conduct mediation.
Bumi Flora needs a verifiable solution.
What is the total area of the land in dispute?
What is the history of its ownership?
How was the HGU issued and extended?
Is community land included within the HGU area?
How are the rights of the 2001 tragedy victims restored?
What form of resolution is legally acceptable to both the company and the community?
And most importantly!!!
Who is responsible for ensuring the entire process is completed?
These questions must be answered openly.
The Agrarian Reform Law will lose its meaning if conflicts like Bumi Flora are merely passed from one desk to another.
Agrarian reform should not be just a land distribution program. It must serve as a mechanism to dismantle land inequality, resolve conflicts, provide legal certainty, and ensure the community does not continue living in agrarian uncertainty.
The state’s work is not fully complete. Land conflicts have also not fully found common ground. When these two issues converge in the same space and region, the state must not view them as separate events devoid of contextual connection.
Human rights justice demands resolution. Agrarian justice demands certainty. And both require a tangible state presence.
Therefore, the momentum of the Agrarian Reform Law’s enactment must be used to test the state’s courage in resolving protracted agrarian conflicts.
Let not agrarian reform become merely a new name on statutory pages while the public continues to wait for certainty on the land they dispute.
And let not Bumi Flora be remembered only when there is blood, riots, or fire.
For land issues that are not resolved through law may one day be resolved through conflict.
Bumi Flora stands as a reminder that it is not enough for the state to be present just to extinguish the flames. The state must be present to address the source that keeps those flames alive.
Author: Afinas Qadafi, S.H., CPM. (Head of Research Department, Central Executive Board of the Indonesian Law Students Association)