Lawyers contend cops involved in Koh, Amri disappearances

SUHAKAM INQUIRY | In a wrap-up of the Suhakam inquiry into the disappearances of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat today, lawyers representing their respective families contended that police were involved in both cases.

Representing the Koh family, Jerald Gomez raised several inconsistencies in police statements following the pastor’s abduction on Feb 13, 2017.

These include a June 2017 shootout in Kedah, which then-inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar linked to Koh’s abduction.

The initial press statement released by Kedah police on the shootout stated that a suspected drug and arms smuggler had been killed, with no mention of the pastor's abduction.

Gomez said this “contradiction” raised suspicions about the link between the two incidents, and questioned if it had been used as a “red herring” to divert scrutiny away from the police.

The lawyer also pointed to a second alleged diversion – the charging of Lam Chang Nam for Koh's abduction just as the Suhakam inquiry was getting underway, which then resulted in it being temporarily suspended.

Lam had previously been charged with extorting money from Koh’s family.

“Lam was another red herring, as former IGP Khalid... had already exonerated him from any involvement in the abduction.

“All these things point to the inevitable conclusion that they (the police) did not want all this evidence to come out in this Suhakam inquiry.

“We submit that the only reason they did not want the truth to come out was because they were involved themselves,” Gomez told the inquiry.

In response, Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department Legal and Prosecution principal assistant director Mohd Azman Ahmad Sapri maintained that evidence had indeed been found linking the Kedah shootout to Koh's abduction.

Azman did not address Lam’s abduction charge, however.

'Amri monitored before abduction'

In Amri’s case, family lawyer David Morais deduced from a sequence of events that police were involved in the Perlis Hope activist’s disappearance.

"Amri’s abduction was on Nov 24, 2016.

“The surveillance outside his house was observed for three days before he disappeared. On Nov 21, 22 and 23,” he said.

Morais pointed to how former Bukit Aman Social Extremism Division chief Awaludin Jadid previously told the inquiry that police monitored Amri prior to his disappearance because they viewed his NGO as a front for Syiah proselytisation activities.

A month before the disappearance, Awaludin had met with Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin. 

Morais added that on Nov 6, the police officer had given a speech warning about the threat of followers of Syiah Islam.

The lawyer also upheld Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Arrifin’s testimony that she had been informed by Perlis Special Branch officer Mohd Shamzaini Mohd Daud that police were involved in both her husband and Koh’s disappearances.

In response, Bukit Aman Legal Department chief Mokhtar Mohd Nor stressed that Shamzaini lodged a police report against Norhayati, denying he ever relayed such information to her.

Shamzaini had also vehemently denied doing so in his testimony before the Suhakam inquiry.

“The statement (about the police’s involvement) did not happen at all. He (Shamzaini) did not retract any statements but he denied that he had said that to Norhayati.

“He denied it strongly,” he said.

Mokhtar added that some of Morais’ questions had gone beyond what their legal team had prepared for, and agreed to submit a written submission by March 11.

Findings on April 3

Today was the last chance for all parties, including Suhakam officials and observers from the Bar Council, to present their cases before the inquiry panel.

Comprising Suhakam commissioners Mah Weng Kwai, Aishah Bidin and Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh, the panel will present its findings from both inquiries on April 3.

The inquiries began in Oct 2017. Also present today were Koh and Amri’s families.

Speaking to the media after the inquiry, Koh’s wife Susanna Liew thanked Suhakam and her lawyers for their help with the case.

“I (now) have reasonable grounds to say that these cases were enforced disappearances,” she said, adding that she hoped that a new and impartial taskforce would be set up for the cases.

An enforced disappearance is defined by the United Nations as the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the state or by persons, or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the state.

Similarly, Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Ariffin said that she believed in her lawyers’ version of events, and hoped that findings from the Suhakam inquiry would help solve her husband’s disappearance.

“It’s been more than two years, but the police have not met us to give us any information about the case. 

"I hope to be able to have a face-to-face explanation (from the police) about what happened (to my husband),” she added.  - Mkini