Enforced disappearances: Law allows Suhakam to admit hearsay evidence

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) is allowed by law to admit hearsay evidence during a public inquiry.

Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai, who chaired the commission’s inquiry into the disappearances of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, said this after Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad labelled the inquiry’s findings as hearsay.

The inquiry had yesterday named Bukit Aman’s Special Branch as the culprit behind both disappearances.

Today, Mah, a former Court of Appeal judge, pointed to Section 14(1)(d) of the Suhakam Act 1999, which states that the inquiry is not constrained by the strict standards of proof observed in civil or criminal proceedings.

“So, hearsay becomes admissible. We (the panel) were very mindful of this. A lot of what was said (during the inquiry) was hearsay evidence.

“And so having applied the law to say it is admissible, the next important thing is how do we evaluate and assess the evidence, how much weight do we attach to such evidence,” he said during a press conference at the commission’s headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

Hearsay evidence evaluated

Mah maintained that the panel had evaluated all available evidence before arriving at their conclusion, and hoped that Mahathir and other critics would study their report of the inquiry's findings.

“Please, anyone who is going to have views on this, kindly read them (the reports) and analyse them.

“Everything has been stated to the best of our abilities based on the evidence that we have received, evidence brought to us, and used before the inquiry,” he said.

Mah Weng Kwai

In the reports, each almost 100 pages, the panel stated that it was ultimately convinced by the “consistent” oral evidence from Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Ariffin.

Norhayati had testified that she was informed by Perlis Special Branch officer Shamzaini Mohd Daud that a team from the Bukit Aman Special Branch had taken both her husband and Koh.

Shamzaini later denied disclosing such information but the inquiry had found the police officer’s version of events to be “full of inconsistencies”.

Copies of the report will be sent to the Prime Minister’s Office, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Home Ministry, and the police, Mah added.

Up to state, police to prove otherwise

Mahathir had demanded that Suhakam furnish evidence to support their conclusion that the police were culpable.

To this, all three commissioners who chaired the inquiry said that the onus was on the government and the police to prove that Koh and Amri were not victims of enforced disappearance.

“Our job is to look at whether the state is involved.

“The onus of proof then comes back to the state to acquire and submit evidence to show that they are not at all involved in the act of taking (them),” said commissioner and commercial law expert Aishah Bidin at the same press conference.

Commissioner Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh noted that the cases remained unsolved by the police.

“The case is still under investigation and it is still ongoing.

“If they (the police) can prove otherwise, it will be good,” she said.

Amri has been missing since Nov 24, 2016 while Koh was abducted on Feb 13, 2017. - Mkini