KUALA LUMPUR: The investigating officer tasked with probing Amri Che Mat’s disappearance told the High Court that two potential eyewitnesses were unable to confirm that the person abducted in Kangar eight years ago was in fact the activist.
Khor Yi Shuen said the testimonies of Syed Amri Abd Jalil and Saiful Afdzan Seinei were not solid enough as neither was able to positively identify Amri as the victim of the abduction on Nov 24, 2016 at Kampung Pahang Behor.
he said in his testimony.Both said they were very far away and it was dark. They also did not lodge police reports on what they saw,
Khor was testifying in a lawsuit filed by Amri’s wife, Norhayati Ariffin, against the government and several police officers, including himself, over the conduct of investigations into the activist’s disappearance.
The suit alleges that the defendants had breached the law and their statutory duties, committed misfeasance in public office, and were negligent in the discharge of their responsibilities.
Police reports also were not lodged by two other individuals – Shah Rizal Abdul Manan and Vee Yak a/l Ban Jong – who allegedly saw three vehicles parked outside Amri’s house before the activist went missing, said Khor.
he added.No ransom was demanded from Amri’s family. This is why it is classified as a ‘missing person’ case,
Asked by senior federal counsel Zetty Zurina Kamaruddin whether the police conducted road blocks at the state’s borders as part of its efforts to locate Amri, Khor said
.No
He also denied that the police had dropped investigations into the activist’s disappearance.
said Khor.The investigation papers were sent to Bukit Aman,
The hearing continues before Justice Su Tiang Joo on Oct 21.
Amri left his home in Kangar, Perlis, at about 11.30pm on Nov 24, 2016. His car was found at a construction site at the Bukit Cabang Sports School early the next morning.
Suhakam held a public inquiry into his disappearance between 2017 and 2019.
The inquiry concluded that Amri was a victim of an enforced disappearance carried out by the state, specifically by the Special Branch. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.