The Indonesian National Armed Force (TNI) operation in Nduga has left two men identified by the military as members of the armed criminal group, known as the West Papua National Liberation Army from the Free Papua Movement (TPNPB OPM), dead, prompting renewed debate over the circumstances of the encounter and the evidence used to establish their identities. Military officials say drone footage captured the men preparing weapons and attacking troops, while items recovered at the scene support their assessment that the two were armed group members rather than civilians.
The men were identified as Keli Giban and Cat Giban. According to Lieutenant General Lucky Avianto, commander of Joint Regional Defence Command III, both were affiliated with the Wesem Battalion of Kodap III Ndugama, an armed group led by Wariambo Wandikbo. The encounter occurred near Kampung Nonggoloid, Kenyam Komplek, Nduga Regency, in Papua Pegunungan Province. The military said the two died during an exchange of fire with personnel from the Rajawali VI Task Force under the Habema operations command.
The operation has become the focus of competing accounts. Military officials say troops encountered an armed group during a patrol and came under fire after asking the men to surrender. Claims circulated on social media that the deceased were civilians, which Lucky rejected, citing intelligence information, aerial footage, and items recovered by troops.
The footage has been presented by the military as important evidence of the men’s actions during the encounter. However, the full recording has not been independently verified in the reporting cited here. Establishing the circumstances of the deaths requires a careful examination of the footage, the recovered evidence, and any other reliable information available to investigators.
The incident underscores a central challenge in Papua’s security environment: authorities must respond to armed threats while ensuring that claims about civilian casualties are assessed transparently and on the basis of evidence.
How the encounter unfolded in Nduga
Troops Encounter an Armed Group During a Patrol
According to the account provided by Lucky and reported by Jatimnow and Okezone on October 27, Indonesian troops were conducting a patrol through the residential area around Nonggoloid when they encountered a group of armed men.
The military said the troops initially called on the group to surrender voluntarily. Rather than comply, Keli Giban and Cat Giban, alongside four other members of the group, allegedly responded by firing live ammunition towards the soldiers.
“Before the incident occurred, our troops had attempted to ask them to surrender,” Lucky said, according to Okezone. He stated that the appeal was answered with gunfire from the two men and four others.
The account places the exchange of fire after an attempt to secure a surrender. That sequence is based on the military’s description of events; the reports do not provide an independently established account of every moment leading up to the shooting.
The presence of six alleged armed group members is significant to the military’s explanation of the encounter. Officials say the two men who died were part of a wider group that engaged troops, while the available reporting does not detail the subsequent whereabouts or identities of the other four individuals.
The Rajawali VI Task Force, operating under Joint Regional Defence Command III, conducted the military operation under the Habema operational command. Lucky stated that troops came under fire, prompting the response.
Drone Footage Becomes a Central Part of the Military’s Account
The military cites footage recorded by a surveillance drone monitoring troop movements and the operation as one of the principal pieces of evidence. According to Lucky, the recording shows members of the armed group preparing weapons before attacking soldiers.
The footage was cited as evidence that the two deceased men were involved in the armed encounter, rather than being uninvolved civilians caught in the area. Military officials say it supports the identification of Keli Giban and Cat Giban as members of the Wesem Battalion under Wariambo Wandikbo.
The significance of aerial footage lies in its potential to document events from a perspective different from eyewitness accounts on the ground. Investigators may reconstruct the sequence of events if they can establish the time, location, and context of the original recording, provided it is complete.
Nevertheless, a video recording should be assessed alongside other evidence. Its interpretation depends on what is visible, the quality and continuity of the images, and whether the individuals shown can be reliably identified. The reports cited here describe the military’s interpretation of the footage but do not provide a complete independent forensic assessment.
For that reason, the footage is best understood as evidence presented by the military in support of its account, rather than as an independently verified final determination of every disputed detail.
What Troops Reportedly Recovered at the Scene
Following the exchange of fire, soldiers searched the area and reported recovering several items. These included cash amounting to tens of millions of rupiah, a modified air rifle reportedly capable of firing live ammunition, four boxes of ammunition, various bladed weapons, and a Bintang Kejora flag.
The military cited these items as part of the evidence supporting its assessment that the men were affiliated with an armed group. The reported recovery of ammunition and a modified weapon is particularly relevant to the military’s account of an armed confrontation.
However, the evidentiary value of recovered objects depends on how they are documented, where they were found, and whether their connection to specific individuals can be established. A rigorous assessment would consider the chain of custody, the circumstances of recovery, and any available forensic examination.
The reports do not provide a complete inventory with forensic findings or independently verified documentation of every item. Consequently, the recovered objects should be described as items the military says it found, rather than treated as conclusive proof of every allegation associated with the incident.
The distinction matters in a security environment where information can spread rapidly and competing accounts can emerge before all the facts are known. Clearly identifying what authorities report, what evidence they cite, and what remains independently unverified helps readers assess the case more accurately.
TNI rejects Claims that the Deceased Were Civilians
On October 27, Lucky publicly identified the two deceased men as Keli Giban and Cat Giban and said intelligence information linked them to Wariambo Wandikbo’s Wesem Battalion, part of Kodap III Ndugama.
The commander rejected claims circulating on social media that the men were civilians. He argued that the military’s intelligence information, the drone footage, and the items reportedly recovered at the scene contradicted that account.
Lucky also described the group led by Wariambo as having a history of violence against local residents. Jatimnow reported that some residents of Kenyam had used the nickname “Si Raja Tega” for the group. Such characterizations reflect claims attributed to the military and local accounts reported by the outlet; they should not be taken as a substitute for independently documented findings about particular incidents.
The commander stated that the military acted in accordance with its rules of engagement and principles of respect for human rights. He stated that troops had been instructed to fire when confronting targets visibly carrying weapons and described civilian safety as a guiding principle of the operation.
These statements articulate the military’s position on the incident. Assessing compliance with applicable rules, however, ultimately depends on the facts of the encounter, the evidence available, and any competent review of the operation.
The government has a legitimate responsibility to protect people from armed violence. At the same time, the credibility of security operations is strengthened when claims are supported by verifiable evidence and questions about civilian status are addressed through transparent procedures.
Why Civilian Identification Matters
Disputes over the identity of people killed during security operations can have serious consequences for public confidence. If individuals are incorrectly described as combatants or civilians, the error can undermine trust, complicate accountability, and deepen tensions in affected communities.
In this case, military officials maintain that Keli Giban and Cat Giban were members of an armed group and cite the drone footage and recovered items as supporting evidence. The competing civilian claim was reported as circulating on social media, but the two sources provided by the user do not establish who originated that claim or present an independently verified account from those making it.
The most responsible approach is to distinguish between the military’s stated conclusion and what has been independently established. The footage may be important evidence, but a conclusive determination should take account of the original recording, corroborating information, and any other credible evidence available.
This does not require treating all accounts as equally substantiated. Official statements from the military are relevant sources, particularly concerning its own operation. Their claims should nevertheless be attributed clearly, and independent verification should be acknowledged where it is absent.
Such standards help prevent misinformation without prematurely dismissing legitimate questions. They also protect the credibility of the state’s response by ensuring that public explanations remain grounded in evidence rather than rhetoric.
Security Operations and the Protection of Nduga Residents
The incident highlights the difficult environment in which security personnel and civilians live and work in parts of Papua Pegunungan. Armed encounters can create immediate risks for people in surrounding settlements, while uncertainty over the circumstances can produce anxiety and conflicting accounts.
For residents, the central concern is safety in daily life: being able to travel, attend school, work, and access essential services without fear of violence. Security operations are intended to address armed threats, but their wider value depends in part on how effectively they protect communities and minimize risks to people who are not involved in hostilities.
That requires more than tactical action. Reliable communication with local communities, careful assessment of operational risks, and clear information after an incident can help reduce uncertainty. Where allegations about civilian casualties emerge, timely examination of the evidence can also help distinguish verified findings from speculation.
The military’s emphasis on rules of engagement and civilian safety is therefore important, but public confidence will be strengthened most by consistent implementation and credible evidence. Where the facts are disputed, an open and careful review can provide greater clarity than competing assertions alone.
Conclusion
The deaths of Keli Giban and Cat Giban during the reported firefight in Nonggoloid have prompted the military to defend its account of the operation and reject claims that the men were civilians. Lieutenant General Lucky Avianto says the two were members of the Wesem Battalion under Wariambo Wandikbo and points to drone footage and items reportedly recovered at the scene as evidence supporting that identification.
However, the reporting cited here has not independently examined the full drone recording and the recovered items. A careful assessment should therefore distinguish the military’s account from independently verified findings and avoid treating every disputed detail as conclusively settled.
The broader responsibility remains clear. Indonesian authorities must protect residents from armed violence while ensuring that security operations comply with applicable law and respect human rights. Transparent evidence, accurate public communication, and credible examination of disputed claims serve both objectives.
For Nduga’s communities, the ultimate measure of success is not simply the outcome of a single operation. It is whether security improves, civilian life is protected, and residents can pursue their daily activities with greater confidence. Evidence-based reporting and accountability can help ensure that efforts to restore security are supported by public trust.
Read Also
TNI-OPM Clashes in Nduga Leave Two Dead
Indonesian Security Operations Target TPNPB OPM Networks in Papua Tengah