This research examines the objectivity of verbalisant witnesses’ testimony
in proving narcotics-related criminal acts under Indonesian criminal procedure law.
Verbalisant witnesses, who are usually investigators, are presented in court when
the defendant withdraws or denies the contents of the official investigation report
(BAP). However, their position raises a serious issue of objectivity, as their
statements often merely confirm the BAP they prepared themselves and tend to
align with the interests of law enforcement. This study employs a normative
juridical method with statutory, case, and doctrinal approaches, supported by
interviews with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. The findings indicate
that the testimony of verbalisant witnesses cannot be considered objective since it
does not stem from direct experience but from the investigation process they
themselves conducted. This condition risks undermining the principles of a fair trial
and in dubio pro reo if used as the main basis for proof. The case study and interviews further emphasize that verbalisant testimony should only serve as
supplementary evidence, which must be carefully verified through other, more independent means of proof. Therefore, this research recommends the need for clear
limitations on the use of verbalisant witnesses’ testimony to prevent injustice while ensuring legal certainty in narcotics cases.