CCTV Ruben Onsu Was Shown in Part, This is What the Lawyer Said

The CCTV video presented by Ruben Onsu has caught the public's attention because it was not shown in full. Legal counsel, Minola Sebayang, stated that the material displayed is the relevant part needed for proof.

"Indeed, we did not show it in full. So what’s the point of us saying 'This is the complete CCTV of the argument', what’s the point? We have it too, but we don’t want to because we feel there is no interest in showing it in full," said Minola Sebayang when met in Kuningan, South Jakarta, Monday (3/8/2026).

According to Minola, their focus is not on presenting the entire content of the argument, but rather highlighting the behavior recorded at the time of the incident as part of the proof process.

1. Explanation from Minola Sebayang Regarding the Edited Recording

Ruben Onsu wearing batik shirt © KapanLagi.com/Fikri Alfi Rosyadi

Minola Sebayang emphasized that the video clips released to the public were specifically chosen to support the evidence. He stressed that the core focus is on the behavior during the incident, not the entire debate within it.

He mentioned that his side has a more complete recording. However, based on the interests of the case, there is no obligation to disclose the entire duration of the recording to the public.

This statement was made by Minola when he was met in Kuningan, South Jakarta, emphasizing that the evidence material needs to be limited to what is relevant to the ongoing case.

2. Child Protection Becomes a Focus in Custody Dispute

Minola Sebayang with Ruben Onsu © KapanLagi.com/Fikri Alfi Rosyadi

Furthermore, Minola explained that the excerpts shown were aimed at answering questions about child protection during the altercation. According to him, this aspect is one of the points he wants to prove in the custody case.

"We only want to take a snippet about the altercation regarding the behavior during the fight. We don’t want it to be heard by the children, you know. Does he realize that the children referred to here are not just two, but also include Betrand," he explained.

He also mentioned the presence of Betrand Peto or Onyo in the incident. Minola emphasized that the interests of all children must be considered, not just the two biological children of Ruben Onsu and Sarwendah.

"Look at that video, did Betrand hear it? Did Betrand see it? Is it enough to protect the interests of that child based only on the interests of two other children? Those children, like it or not, there are three children," Minola asserted.

3. Call to Restrain and Not Diverge from the Main Issue

Although stating that they have a more complete recording, Minola explained that they chose to maintain boundaries in presenting evidence to the public. He requested that attention not diverge to other issues that are not related to the substance of the case.

"So come on, that's why I say let's not stray here and there. Don't let it mean that we talk here and there just to disqualify Ruben," he concluded.

Minola reiterated that the discussion should remain within the corridor of the main issue. He asked all parties to focus on aspects that are relevant to the evidence being pursued.

(kpl/far/phi)