Third Legal Notice No. 046/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026: Ibrahim Arief and Ina Digital Edu / GovTech Edu (English Translation of the Indonesian Letter)

This post summarises Somasi No. 046/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026, the third formal legal notice I sent in Indonesian on 31 August 2026 to Mr. Ibrahim Arief (forum account "ibam / GovTech Edu") and to Ina Digital Edu (also known as GovTech Edu). This English edition summarises and translates it. It is a demand letter, not a police report, court filing or finding. Neither recipient has responded here, and I do not assert that either is guilty of any offence.

Background: a third notice in the same matter

The letter says it follows two earlier notices to Mr. Arief: Somasi No. 028/SOMASI/RW/IV/2026 (29 April 2026) and a "Second and Final" Somasi No. 029/SOMASI-II/RW/V/2026 (12 May 2026), neither answered. A certificate of non-appearance (No. 030/SK-MANGKIR/RW/V/2026, 16 May 2026) records that. I treat the repeated non-response as part of the conduct I am giving notice about.

Copies went to PT Telkom Indonesia (as the group that houses the GovTech Edu / Ina Digital Edu business line), Peruri's GovTech Indonesia team (insofar as relevant to the "GovTech" brand), the National Police Cyber Crime Directorate, and the Bekasi Metro Police service centre.

What the letter says happened

Episode 1 (September–October 2023), on a digital community forum, using an account labelled "ibam / GovTech Edu." I describe four separate comments:

1. September 2023. He wrote that people worried about my "safety" were "overestimating his ability and his understanding of our legal process." In my reading, this attacks my credibility just as I was considering legal steps over the bullying I faced.
2. 25 September 2023. When I said I intended to report defamation to the police, he replied that, as the only non-anonymous person in the thread, he wondered whether this was a threat aimed at him, that he could invoke Art. 45B of the ITE Law, that he would have his lawyer on standby, and that bringing the law into it could "backfire." That comment got 68 upvotes, while mine got 121 downvotes. In my reading, this was a counter-threat meant to discourage me from reporting.
3. 28 September 2023. He went through my older posts on another subforum, listed identifying details in public, and labelled me so "cocky" that he "warned him that he'll be a toxic talent if he keep that attitude." That comment got 29 upvotes.
4. 25 October 2023. Asked whether I was on his blacklist, he replied that of course, since the news first came out he had put me on his "personal blacklist." In my reading, a public blacklist declaration by a figure presented as a senior technology professional can concretely close career opportunities for me.

Episode 2 (2026): repeated refusal of my notices. In my reading, ignoring both earlier notices, after saying publicly that my legal steps would "backfire," obstructed my right to pursue a fair resolution.

Corporate attributes. He was not anonymous, and the account displayed the name, logo or label "GovTech Edu" (now Ina Digital Edu). I argue that this lent the posts institutional authority and intimidation weight, and that, if used without the company's authority for a personal attack, it raises a question about misuse of corporate identity. I have not established what authority, if any, the company gave.

Harm I described

Wide and lasting damage to my reputation in the professional tech community; the labels "toxic talent," "cocky" and "doesn't understand the law" and a "personal blacklist" status applied without basis; hampered career prospects; obstructed access to a fair legal process; and prolonged psychological harm since 2023.

Legal basis I relied on

I wrote the letter myself, without a lawyer. It notes that the 2023 episode predates the new Criminal Code (in force 2 January 2026), so the older provisions (Arts. 310–315 of the old Code and Art. 27A jo. Art. 45 of the ITE Law) formally apply, with Arts. 433, 434 and 441 of the new Code cited as normative equivalents; the 2026 conduct falls under the new Code. It also cites Art. 45B jo. Art. 29 ITE Law for electronic intimidation, Art. 492 KUHP (use of a false position or name) as to the corporate attributes, copyright and trademark statutes as to the use of the logo, and Civil Code provisions for unlawful acts.

What I demanded

By Thursday, 3 September 2026, 17:00 WIB:

From Mr. Ibrahim Arief:

1. Delete the comments described above;
2. Publicly withdraw the "personal blacklist" declaration;
3. Publish a public apology for at least 30 days acknowledging that "toxic talent," "does not understand the law" and similar labels were untrue;
4. Stop threats, digital-history digging and further publication;
5. Stop using the GovTech Edu / Ina Digital Edu name, logo and attributes on his personal account without authority;
6. Pay IDR 1,066,666,668 in immaterial damages (four times IDR 266,666,666.67, that is, twice the maximum fine for each of two episodes).

From Ina Digital Edu / GovTech Edu:

1. Issue a written position statement that it does not condone his conduct and that use of its logo and name to attack individuals is not its policy;
2. Conduct an internal audit of how the account, logo, name and attributes were used, including whether at work or with office resources, with corrective and disciplinary steps;
3. Report him internally and, if appropriate, to law enforcement for alleged misuse of corporate assets and identity, citing relevant provisions;
4. Remove the attributes from his account and prevent repetition;
5. Appoint a responsible officer and open a formal coordination channel.

I offered a settlement discussion by email. If the demands were not met, I stated I would file criminal reports and a civil suit for an unlawful act, escalate internally, and publish the notice with its evidence.

Limits of this record

• This is my account and my legal reading; no court or authority has made a finding.
• Quotations are my English renderings of Indonesian originals captured in screenshots.
• I have not established what authority, if any, GovTech Edu gave for the use of its attributes.
• The damages figure is a demand, not an assessed loss.
• I am not a lawyer, and this post is not legal advice.

Right of reply and correction

Mr. Ibrahim Arief and Ina Digital Edu / GovTech Edu are each invited to respond, correct, or add context. A substantive reply may be published alongside this article, edited only for privacy, safety and relevance. If reliable evidence shows any statement here is wrong, I will correct it and note the change.

See also Legal risk analysis and outcome prediction: Ibrahim Arief and The Ibam Files: A Logical Fallacy Audit.

#Somasi #Defamation #ITELaw #LegalNotice #CorporateAccountability

---

Rahmat Wibowo, Founder & CEO, InfraLoka — infraloka.co.id