Indonesia Sued for Gross Negligence Over Wildfire Haze Crisis
Indigenous and civil society groups in Indonesia's part of Borneo filed a class-action lawsuit in September 2026 accusing the government of "gross negligence" in its handling of wildfires that spread toxic haze across parts of Southeast Asia. A class action lets many affected residents seek remedy through a single case. The case was first reported on 8 October 2026 The Guardian.
The suit names 10 defendants, including President Prabowo Subianto and the governor of West Kalimantan. The four plaintiffs include a chapter of the Indigenous group AMAN and the local branch of Catholic Youth. Their lawyer is Glorio Sanen.
The opening hearing took place in Pontianak, the capital of West Kalimantan province, on Wednesday. None of the defendants attended. Judges adjourned the case until 21 October. The plaintiff groups publicly criticized the no-show Reuters.
The lawsuit says the government failed to prevent forest and land fires that return every year and failed to respond adequately Reuters. It asks the court to order better management of the annual fires, plus full recovery and rehabilitation, including payment of residents' healthcare costs.
Health officials reported a sharp rise in breathing illness through September. Wildfire-related respiratory infections more than doubled in just over a week in early September, reaching 113,336 cases as of 9 September, up from 50,891, according to Health Ministry data Reuters. By 23 September, about 175,000 people in Indonesia had suffered respiratory illness since August, the ministry said BBC. Thick haze from the country's worst wildfires in 11 years covered parts of Borneo in September 2026 and spread beyond Indonesia's borders to other parts of Southeast Asia.
A similar wildfire case filed last year in South Sumatra was dismissed.
The broader context here is accountability for harm that repeats each fire season. The plaintiffs describe the yearly fires less as a natural disaster and more as a failure of prevention and response. The legal question is whether health data and a record of repeated fires can establish a court-enforced duty to prevent, control and clean up after fires. The absence of defendants on opening day leaves the court to move the process forward without government participation, while public criticism keeps political attention on the case.
Looking at what this means for Jakarta and the region, much depends on remedy. An order to pay healthcare costs and carry out recovery would place financial responsibility on the state, with effects for fire budgets and oversight of land concessions. A dismissal would follow the South Sumatra precedent and return the issue to government policy. Even allowing the class action to proceed to full trial would keep scrutiny alive through the 21 October hearing and after.
