A security operation in Nduga, in Indonesia’s Papua Pegunungan province, has left two people dead and triggered sharply conflicting accounts over who the victims were and how the shooting unfolded. The Indonesian military says the two were suspected members of an armed group who died during an exchange of fire with troops. The group known as the West Papua National Liberation Army from the Free Papua Movement, or TPNPB-OPM, claims instead that the victims were civilians.
The incident occurred on Friday, October 23, in the Kenyam district. According to Brigadier General Riyanto, commander of the Indonesian military’s Habema Operations Command, personnel from Task Force Rajawali VI, Detachment 1, were conducting a territorial patrol when they followed up on information about the presence of an armed group near a residential area. Riyanto said the group reportedly fired at the patrol when troops approached to check the information, triggering a firefight.
The military reported finding two suspected members of the armed group dead at the scene, while other members fled. It also said troops recovered a collection of items, including air rifles, bows and arrows, mobile phones, communication equipment, documents, group insignia, and Rp88 million in cash. The identities of the two dead people, however, were still being examined, according to the military’s account.
A different account published by Suara Papua on October 24 attributed to TPNPB-OPM spokesperson Sebby Sambom the claim that two civilians had been killed in Kampung Yosoma, also in Kenyam district. That report named the deceased as Helkia Kerebeya, 16, and Mazur Serera, 25, and said a third person, identified as Kaberak Karebeya, 16, had been critically injured. The report also included unverified allegations of arrests and displacement.
The conflicting accounts make the identification of the victims and the sequence of events central questions. The military reports the incident near Kampung Nonggoloit, while the TPNPB-OPM account refers to Kampung Yosoma. The available reports do not establish whether the accounts describe precisely the same location and sequence of events. Nor do they provide an independent investigation that resolves the disagreement.
What the Indonesian Military Says Happened
Patrol Operation and Exchange of Fire
According to the military’s account, the operation began as a territorial patrol rather than an action launched without prior information. Riyanto said troops were responding to information about an armed group operating near a residential area. When personnel moved to examine the situation, the group reportedly opened fire, leading to an exchange of gunfire.
The military identified the group involved as Kodap III/Ndugama-Nderakma, an operational command associated with TPNPB-OPM. It said two suspected members died at the location, while other individuals fled into surrounding forested terrain.
Indonesian news outlets, including ANTARA and Suara.com, carried the account based on statements attributed to the military commander. It has not, in the reports reviewed, been accompanied by an independent reconstruction of the shooting or publicly presented forensic findings establishing the identities and roles of the two people who died.
That distinction matters. An official operational account provides important information about the military’s position, but the classification of those killed as members of an armed group remains a claim that requires supporting evidence, particularly because the identities were still under examination when the reports were published.
Items Reportedly Recovered at the Scene
The military said personnel secured several items after the incident. The list included two air rifles, bows and arrows, bladed weapons, 18 mobile phones, handheld radio communication equipment, documents, group insignia, and Rp88 million in cash.
The recovery of these items forms part of the military’s explanation of the operation. However, the presence of an item at a scene does not, by itself, establish who owned it or prove the activities of every person present. The items’ evidentiary value depends on how they were found, how they were documented, and any later examination.
The military has not, in the reports cited here, published a full inventory with forensic findings or detailed evidence connecting each item to the two people who died. The reported cash amount is therefore a detail of the military’s account, not independent proof of the victims’ identities.
For a complete public record, the authorities would need to clarify the chain of custody for the recovered items and explain what the examination establishes.
TPNPB-OPM Disputes the Military’s Account
Claims that the victims were civilians
On October 24, Suara Papua reported a statement attributed to TPNPB-OPM spokesperson Sebby Sambom. Indonesian military personnel allegedly carried out an operation in Kampung Yosoma, resulting in the deaths of two civilians. It identified the deceased as Helkia Kerebeya, 16, and Mazur Serera, 25. The same account said a third person, Kaberak Karebeya, 16, was critically injured.
The report said Sambom’s account was based on information attributed to TPNPB intelligence personnel in the Kenyam area. That is an account from a party involved in the wider conflict, not an independently verified finding. The claims about the victims’ civilian status, the use of a drone, and the circumstances of the shooting require corroboration.
Suara Papua also reported allegations that six residents had been detained and that some residents had fled to forested areas out of fear. The report said the status of those allegedly detained was unclear at the time of publication. Indonesian authorities or independent observers have not confirmed these allegations, according to the available sources.
The allegations are serious because the protection of civilians is a fundamental obligation in security operations. They should not be dismissed merely because they were made by TPNPB-OPM. Equally, they should not be treated as fact without evidence.
A credible account requires examination of the victims’ identities, eyewitness testimony, medical records where available, the location of the shooting, and the circumstances in which force was used.
A Difference that Cannot Be Resolved by Competing Statements Alone
The two narratives differ in more than the description of the victims. The military’s account refers to an armed group firing at a patrol near Kampung Nonggoloit, while the TPNPB-OPM account describes civilians engaged in activities around a home in Kampung Yosoma. The accounts also differ over the sequence of events and the circumstances leading to the shooting.
The available reporting does not resolve whether these differences reflect competing descriptions of the same incident, confusion over the precise location, or other circumstances that remain unreported. The public should therefore be cautious about drawing definitive conclusions from either account alone.
At the time Suara Papua published its report, it said it had not received an official response from the TNI, police, government, or Indonesia’s National Commission on Human Rights, known as Komnas HAM, concerning the allegations in the TPNPB-OPM statement.
That statement describes the situation at the time of publication, not necessarily the status of any subsequent response. Nevertheless, it highlights an important gap in the publicly available record: the competing accounts had not been reconciled through an independent finding.
Riyanto Emphasizes Professional Conduct and Civilian Safety
In statements reported on October 24, Riyanto said military personnel had acted selectively, proportionately, and professionally, in accordance with operational rules, with the safety of civilians as a priority.
“Every action taken by soldiers is carried out selectively, in a measured and professional manner, and in accordance with the rules of engagement, with the safety of the community as the main priority,” Riyanto said, according to Suara.com’s report.
He also called on members of armed groups still operating in the forests and mountains of Papua to stop violence and return to their families and communities.
“The path back to their families and communities remains open. Stop the violence and work together to build a better life for Papua’s future generations,” he said.
The military’s declared position emphasizes that security operations must adhere to established rules and prioritize civilian safety. Whether those principles were followed in this particular incident must be assessed against the available evidence, not solely through an official assurance.
The allegations made by TPNPB-OPM make that assessment especially important. If evidence confirms that the deceased were civilians, the circumstances and responsibility for their deaths would need to be addressed through the appropriate legal mechanisms. If evidence supports the military’s account that they were members of an armed group involved in an exchange of fire, the authorities should publish the relevant findings as far as security and legal considerations permit.
Either way, clear information would help distinguish verified facts from claims circulated by parties to the conflict.
Why Verification Matters for Papua’s Security Environment
Protecting Civilians and Maintaining Public Confidence
Nduga is part of Papua Pegunungan, a region where security operations and armed-group activity have repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of communities. When violence occurs near residential areas, residents may face immediate risks from gunfire and wider disruption to daily life.
For families living near an incident, uncertainty over the fate of relatives, the status of those detained, and whether they can safely return home can have consequences long after a firefight ends. Access to medical care, freedom of movement, and the ability to seek clarification from authorities are therefore important elements of the response.
The competing accounts in Nduga demonstrate why rapid and credible communication matters. Where the military provides information about an operation, identifying what has been confirmed and what remains under examination can help reduce speculation. Where residents or other parties raise allegations, those claims should be recorded and assessed rather than automatically accepted or rejected.
The role of independent verification is not to prejudge the conduct of security personnel or the claims of an armed group. The goal is to find out the truth through evidence and decide if more action is needed.
Distinguishing Operational Claims from Established Findings
The military’s report of recovered weapons, communication equipment, and cash is relevant to understanding its account of the incident. The TPNPB-OPM statement, meanwhile, raises questions about civilian casualties, an alleged injury, and alleged detentions. Neither set of claims resolves the other automatically.
A transparent process could clarify the location and timeline, confirm the identities and ages of the deceased, establish the medical condition of the reported injured person, and determine whether anyone was detained. Where evidence is available, it could also assess whether the recovered items were connected to the people involved and reconstruct the circumstances in which shots were fired.
Such steps would serve the public interest regardless of which account ultimately proves accurate. They would also provide a stronger basis for any legal or disciplinary decisions that may follow.
Conclusion
The October 23 incident in Nduga has produced two sharply different accounts. Indonesia’s military says two suspected armed-group members died in a firefight during a patrol operation and reports recovering weapons, communication equipment, documents, group insignia, and Rp88 million in cash. TPNPB-OPM disputes that account and claims the deceased were civilians, with one other person critically injured. As of October 24, 2026, the reporting continues to contest the identities and circumstances.
The incident should not be reduced to a contest of competing narratives. The military’s account deserves scrutiny against evidence, just as allegations made by TPNPB-OPM require corroboration. Assertions that one side is deliberately misleading the public cannot substitute for proof of what happened.
For Indonesia, a clear and credible account of the incident would help demonstrate that security operations are subject to scrutiny and that civilian protection is taken seriously. For the people of Nduga, the immediate priorities are reliable information about those who died, clarity about the reported injured person and alleged detentions, and steps to ensure residents can access assistance without fear.
The next stage should focus on establishing the facts, clarifying the victims’ identities and addressing any substantiated allegations through appropriate procedures. In a region where public trust and security remain closely connected, transparent verification is essential to both accountability and the protection of communities.
Read Also
Indonesian Security Operations Target TPNPB OPM Networks in Papua Tengah
Anton and Yesias Fatem Surrender as TNI Recovers Caracal Rifle