Rahmat Wibowo's legal notice to Yassirullah Muhammad, copied to his employer Pahamify, demanding Rp533 million over two reposts on X

What this document is

A 9-page somasi (legal notice), numbered 006/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026 and dated Friday, 28 August 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo in Bekasi to Yassirullah Muhammad, holder of the X account @myassirullah, living in Växjö, Sweden. It is copied to Pahamify, “as the employer whose professional identity (Head of People Partner) is attached to his digital footprint”, and to the alumni association of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, where he studied psychology. All nine pages have been found; pages 6–9 are his evidence attachments B-1 to B-6.

What it says

• The reposts. Two reposts on X of posts by the anonymous account @KawalRahmatwi:
  • on 14 May 2026: “Rahmat Wibowo, anak dari pemilik SPPG Jatisari 2, juga seringkali melakukan pemerasan terhadap banyak orang dengan somasi bodongnya itu. Mirisnya lagi, ia terus meneror orang yang ia somasi, dengan tuntutan uang yang nominalnya berkisar dari 200 juta – 2 Miliar.”
  • on 17 May 2026: a Q&A that includes “Q: Kenapa Rahmat menyumpahi ibu hamil anaknya autis/gila? A: Saat itu, Rahmat lalai saat acara penting company. karena sudah SP2, HR menindak. Ketika rahmat tau HR tsb sedang akan melahirkan, ia menyumpahi HR itu.”
• His position. He calls the accusations of extortion, “bogus somasi”, terrorising people and cursing a pregnant woman untrue and unproven, and says that by reposting them the recipient adopted them as his own.
• Legal basis. Defamation and slander under Articles 433, 434 and 441 of the new Criminal Code, and civil tort under Articles 1365, 1366, 1367(3), 1372 and 1373 of the Civil Code. He lists Articles 143 and 145 of Law 8/2016 on disability “as a normative marker” only.
• Demands, within three days, by Monday 31 August 2026 at 17:00 WIB:
  • delete the reposts and any other sharing of the posts;
  • pin a public apology for 30 days;
  • publish a clarification that he has no evidence;
  • stop any further statements;
  • pay Rp533,333,334, “two times the maximum fine for slander” under Articles 434 and 441.
• If not met:
  • two police reports, for defamation and for slander;
  • a civil suit with Pahamify as co-defendant;
  • sending the notice and all the evidence to Pahamify and the alumni association;
  • publishing the notice and the evidence.

Observations

1. The amount he calls a lie is in this notice. One of the reposts says he sends somasi demanding between Rp200 million and Rp2 billion, and the notice calls that untrue. This notice itself demands Rp533,333,334, within that range. So do his notices to Julyana Sonia Darmawati, Ghozy Ul Haq and Adith Widya Pradipta the same day and to Adityo Pratomo the next day, and his notice to Kukuh Setiawan five weeks later also threatens a suit for Rp8 billion (doc-20260828-003, doc-20260828-004, doc-20260828-002, doc-20260829-001, doc-20261001-001).
2. The pregnant-colleague story was reported by the press. In June 2026 Kilat.com reported a viral video in which Rahmat cursed a pregnant colleague, wishing her unborn child to be autistic (media). The notice calls the reposted account untrue but does not mention the video.
3. The employer as co-defendant. The notice says that because the recipient lists his position at Pahamify in public, Pahamify could be named a co-defendant under Article 1367(3) of the Civil Code, and copies the notice to it for that reason. The article, as the notice itself quotes it, makes employers liable for harm caused by their staff “di dalam melakukan pekerjaan untuk mana orang-orang ini dipakainya” — in the course of the work they are employed for. Reposts on a personal account are not presented as work for Pahamify. In a later notice he wrote that he would not use the recipient’s employer as leverage (doc-20261001-001).
4. A notice for reposts, not posts. The recipient wrote neither post; he reposted them. The notice treats each repost as an act of defamation and addresses the recipient’s anticipated defence that “I only reposted” on page 4.
5. He concedes the disability law does not apply. The notice states that the facts “tidak memenuhi unsur menghalang-halangi akses hak” and that Articles 145 and 143 of Law 8/2016 are not a basis for a criminal report. Elsewhere he cites Article 145 as a crime, for example against Luca Cada Lora (ev-20260728-010), and his Propam complaint relies on it too (doc-20261014-001).
6. A professional profile of the recipient. The notice describes his job, his CHRP certification, his university and his place of residence abroad, and its attachments (pages 8–9) are screenshots of his X profile and of his LinkedIn profile, work history and education, including his grades.
7. Five notices in two days. His screenshots of the reposts were taken on Friday 28 August at 13:17 and 13:21, and he dated this notice the same day. His notices 003 to Julyana Sonia Darmawati, documented at 11:18, 004 to Ghozy Ul Haq, documented at 12:13, and 007 to Adith Widya Pradipta are also dated 28 August, and 027 to Adityo Pratomo is dated 29 August (doc-20260828-003, doc-20260828-004). The numbers are not a running count for the year, though: his complaint of 14 August cites a somasi numbered 035/SOMASI/RW/IV/2026, dated 19 April 2026 (doc-20260814-001).
8. Not shown to have been sent or answered. The collected pages show no proof of delivery and no reply.

Legal references were not checked against the official gazette, which could not be accessed when this analysis was written.