Civil society groups are urging the government to be transparent in revoking the PT Agincourt Resource gold mining permit in connection with the Sumatra disaster. The closed process, from field inspections by the PKH Task Force to decision-making at the relevant ministry, demonstrates the opaque nature of mining governance.
The government has shown a shift in its stance since revoking PT Agincourt Resource’s permit. The company was listed among 28 companies whose permits were revoked for allegedly contributing to forest destruction and exacerbating the Sumatran floods.
Initially, the permit revocation was due to environmental impacts, prompting the government to conduct a post-revocation review. However, in January 2026, Danantara’s Chief Operating Officer (COO), Dony Oskaria, revealed that the 28 companies whose permits had been revoked would be taken over by Danantara. One of these, the Astra Group’s Agincourt mine, would be transferred to the state-owned National Mineral Company (Perminas).
This plan then changed again, on February 18, 2026, the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), stated that the government planned to cancel this revocation for investment and economic reasons.
National Coordinator of Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia, Aryanto Nugroho, said the government should focus on environmental restoration and law enforcement for the Martabe mine and other companies in the case of the revocation of 28 permits related to natural disasters in Sumatra.
“Why doesn’t the government focus on recovery and law enforcement, rather than simply taking over permits?” he asked during a discussion on “Mining Nationalization: Does It Guarantee the People’s Prosperity?” in Jakarta on Wednesday (March 4, 2026).
He noted that the takeover of the Martabe gold mine was an implication of the Forest Area Regulation Task Force (PKH)’s move to revoke the permits of 28 companies. The permit revocations were made because the companies involved committed violations that resulted in the natural disasters of flooding and landslides in Sumatra in late November 2025.
However, unfortunately, Aryanto continued, until now, the government, including the PKH Task Force, has not provided an explanation of the types of violations committed by these companies, which led to the natural disaster in Sumatra.
The government’s changing stance has not actually resolved environmental issues. Instead, it has merely resulted in a transfer of ownership.
“Because it’s not about who manages it, but rather improving governance, including compliance with mining regulations,” Aryanto emphasized.
Rachmi Hertanti of the Transnational Institute highlighted that the PT Agincourt Resource mining permit case in Martabe has attracted widespread attention. This issue has the potential to threaten investor litigation in international arbitration if not handled carefully and creates legal uncertainty. Although PTAR is a national company, its ownership chain is linked to an international investor, Jardine Cycle & Carriage of Singapore, which enjoys investment protection under the Indonesia-Singapore Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
“The investor lawsuit against this country has the effect of holding the government hostage in its efforts to improve environmental sustainability governance in the extractive sector,” Rachmi continued.
Meanwhile, Giri Ahmad Taufik, a UPI academic and Senior Associate of Article 33 Indonesia, highlighted the increasingly pronounced state-led trend in various fields, including the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Giri outlined the discourse and trajectory of the interpretation of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, including the concept of state-led governance and the role of SOEs in Indonesia. He also recommended a form of state-led governance that promotes meritocracy.
“Even if there’s talk of asset takeovers, they must be based on objective data, oriented toward improving governance, and grounded in applicable legal provisions and regulations. That’s what’s called the rule of law,” he said.
Source: Betahita