What happened to Koh and Amri? A guide to Suhakam’s inquiries

KINIGUIDE | The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) will announce tomorrow the findings from its inquiries into the disappearances of Raymond Koh Keng Joo and Amri Che Mat.

More than two years ago, the nation was shocked by CCTV footage that showed how Koh, a Christian pastor and charity worker, was taken away by masked men in broad daylight within 40 seconds. The incident occurred in Petaling Jaya, Selangor on Feb 13, 2017.

Less is known about Amri’s case, though eyewitness accounts heard during the inquiry suggest that the social activist was monitored and then abducted in Kangar, Perlis at about midnight on Nov 24, 2016.

After hearing from eyewitnesses, police officers, religious authorities, lawyers representing the victims’ families, and even the former inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar (below) himself, Suhakam is expected to decide whether it believes the state was involved in both disappearances.

According to the United Nations, the involvement of government officials is one of three elements which define “enforced disappearances”.

Suhakam is also expected to determine whether the police had investigated the incidents adequately.

No one has been held responsible for Koh and Amri’s disappearances thus far. Though investigations are ongoing, the police previously said that all leads have run dry.

Here is a recap of the key moments during the inquiries:

Raymond Koh inquiry

The hearing into Koh’s disappearance began in October 2017, with a total of 16 people testifying.

Early on, former IGP Khalid said that there were possible lapses in police procedure as they had delayed taking statements from eyewitnesses.

Koh’s wife Susanna Liew accused the police of not being forthcoming with updates, while case investigating officer Supari Mohammad said it was the family who had been uncooperative when they were asked if Koh’s alleged attempts to convert Muslims to Christianity could have been a motive for the abduction.

Over the course of the inquiry, the police declined Suhakam’s requests for Supari’s investigation diary, sketch plans of the abduction, CCTV clips of the abduction, and the last known location of Koh’s phone.

The requests were denied largely on grounds that they were state secrets.

This led inquiry panellists and Suhakam commissioners Mah Weng Kwai, Aishah Bidin and Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh (below) to personally visit the abduction scene for a better understanding of the area.

Selangor Criminal Investigation Department chief Fadzil Ahmat testified that the modus operandi in which Koh was abducted was tactically “the same” as a police operation, but denied that the police were involved in the pastor’s disappearance.

Three months into the hearings, Suhakam received a letter from the police saying the commission was bound by its own Act (Suhakam Act 1999) to halt the inquiry.

This was because the matter had become a court case after Lam Chang Nam, who was previously charged with extorting Koh’s son, was slapped with a fresh charge of kidnapping Koh.

Suhakam later decided to ignore the police’s advice and resumed the inquiry in August 2018.

The hearings also zoomed in on Khalid’s statement that linked a suspected drug smuggler, who was killed in a police shootout in Kedah, to Koh’s abduction.

Lawyers for Koh’s family accused the police of fabricating the link to divert attention from themselves, while police maintained that the link had intentionally been omitted from their initial press statement on the shootout in case it jeopardised their probe into Koh’s abduction.

Amri Che Mat inquiry

The hearing into Amri’s disappearance began in January 2018, with a total of 24 people testifying.

Despite multiple requests for their attendance, Saiful Afdzan, a key eyewitness of the alleged abduction, and former police contract worker Saiful Bahari did not show up for the inquiry.

In a statement recorded on video, Saiful Afdzan explained that he had witnessed three vehicles stop a car, which Amri was allegedly travelling in, along Jalan Padang Behor in Kangar, Perlis, around midnight on Nov 24, 2016.

The driver of the car had attempted to flee, but was caught by several people from the vehicles.

The people brought the driver back and put him in the passenger seat of his own car before all four vehicles drove off. The incident lasted less than a minute, Saiful said.

Another eyewitness, passerby Syed Amri Abdul Jalil, detailed how he had seen a car being boxed in by three dark-coloured SUVs along the road Amri had travelled the night he disappeared.

Syed Amri said the police took his statement about what he saw only in January 2018, more than a year after the incident happened.

Meanwhile, another witness named Vee Yak Ban Jong told the inquiry that he had seen three cars - a gold Toyota Vios, a white Honda Civic and a black Toyota Hilux - take turns to park facing Amri’s house with their engines running continuously for three consecutive days before he disappeared.

Both the police and Perlis mufti Asri Zainal Abidin told the inquiry that they believed that Amri’s house, which was used to host activities by his NGO Perlis Hope, was a front to spread deviant Syiah teachings.

Perlis Special Branch (SB) officer Razman Ramli testified that police had been monitoring Amri before he disappeared over allegations that he was spreading Syiah teachings, but later found no evidence to support the claim.

Police also confirmed that the gold Toyota Vios seen by Vee Yak outside Amri’s house was owned by former police contract worker Saiful Bahari, but stressed that the car was not connected to Amri’s disappearance.

In May 2018, the inquiry took a shocking turn when Amri’s wife Norhayati Ariffin (above, centre) lodged a police report claiming Perlis SB officer Shamzaini Mohd Daud had revealed to her that a team of Bukit Aman SB officers had abducted Amri.

She further claimed that, according to Shamzaini, the same Bukit Aman team was also responsible for Raymond Koh’s abduction.

When the allegation was brought before the inquiry, Norhayati upheld her police report, while Shamzaini accused her of lying.

Shamzaini also lodged a police report denying her allegations, and counterclaimed that he had only met Norhayati to inquire about a shop lot she owned.