SUHAKAM INQUIRY | Police are seeking an arrest warrant against an eyewitness in the abduction of the activist Amri Che Mat after the witness failed to appear at court as well as the Suhakam inquiries.

The police observer to the inquiry, R Munusamy, confirmed this to reporters after today’s Suhakam inquiry where the witness, Saiful Afdzan, was supposed to appear as the inquiry’s last witness.

Munusamy said Saiful had been served a subpoena to appear in court and face charges for failing to abide by a Suhakam notice for him to testify at the inquiry on March 20, but he did not turn up.

After Saiful failed to appear at today’s proceedings, the inquiry’s chairperson Mah Weng Kwai said the witness is making a mockery of the proceedings and told the police to take action against him.

“The panel feels that Saiful is making a mockery of the system […] A police report had already been made of March 22, so I hope the police will take action against Saiful.

“Otherwise, the integrity of this very panel is impacted by people like him,” he said after being briefed by Munusamy and Suhakam secretariat members on the chronology of events.

Several notices issued to Saiful

The secretariat told the panel that a notice was served by registered post on Oct 13 last year, which did not provide a fixed date but Saiful had confirmed that he would be present.

That appearance was eventually postponed to March because an earlier proceeding regarding pastor Raymond Koh’s (photo) disappearance had yet to conclude.

A second notice was sent via registered post on March 6 and arrived on March 9. A secretariat member also sent an electronic copy of the notice to Saiful on March 9.

The secretariat member said Saiful eventually replied on March 12 complaining that he would have to close his restaurant to attend proceedings and would suffer losses of RM4,000 per day.

She said that Saiful asked if Suhakam would compensate for his loss of business, travel, and lodging, to which she replied saying that Suhakam would only pay for this travel and lodging expenses.

She said the secretariat followed up on March 16, 19, and 20 on whether he would attend proceedings, but received no replies despite the WhatsApp messages having marked as “read”. In addition, phone calls during this period went unanswered.

This prompted the March 22 police report against Saiful.

Munusamy had previously said that Saiful would be charged under Section 174 of the Penal Code for “non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant”.

The offence is punishable with a six-month jail sentence, a fine of RM2,000, or both.

A second notice for Saiful to testify at today’s Suhakam inquiry was then prepared, and this time it would be served by the police instead of by post.

Munusamy said the investigating officer for Amri’s disappearance, Khor Yi Shuen, had contacted Saiful on Oct 7 to inform him of the date for his appearance and the intention to serve him the notice.

He said Saiful had agreed to appear at the inquiry, but when contacted again on Oct 27, Saiful had claimed to be in Langkawi.

On Oct 29, when Saiful was due to return to Kangar to receive the notice, Munusamy said Khor was unable to contact Saiful on that day and on the following day. He said the officer also visited Saiful’s grandmother’s house and father’s house, but to no avail.

“As of 9.30pm last night, the notice still couldn’t be served,” Munusamy said, tendering a copy of Khor’s investigation diary as an exhibit.

To a question from Mah (photo), Munusamy confirmed that Saiful was aware of the inquiry at all times, particularly today’s session.

Panel views video recording of Saiful

Despite Saiful’s absence, the inquiry proceeded by viewing a video and having a Suhakam secretariat member tender a statement recorded from Saiful on May 17 last year.

The video was tendered to the inquiry by Sheryll Stothard, who is a media liaison officer for the legal team representing the families of alleged enforced disappearances being investigated by Suhakam.

It purportedly showed Saiful explaining to a group of lawyers on Nov 4 last year what he saw on the night of Nov 24, 2016, when Amri was allegedly abducted outside his restaurant.

Gesturing at the road outside, Saiful said he saw Amri’s car being blocked by three other vehicles.

He said saw the driver of Amri’s car attempted to flee towards a closed tyre shop across the road from his restaurant, but three or four people disembarked from the other vehicles and caught up with him before he reached the shop.

He said the driver - whom he could not identify - was then brought to the rear passenger seat of Amri’s (photo) car together with two assailants, while one of the assailants took the wheel before all four vehicles drove off.

“The whole thing lasted less than a minute,” he said on the video.

Stothard also told the panel that Saiful had a cousin with him at the time of the incident, and Mah told the police to try and seek the cousin’s cooperation to testify at the inquiry.

Aside from Mah, today’s inquiry was presided over by commissioners Aishah Bidin and Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh.

Suhakam is investigating whether the disappearances of Amri and two others were “enforced or involuntary,” as defined by the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006.

This is defined 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.

Malaysia is not a signatory of the ICPPED.

Mah has closed the inquiry on Amri’s disappearance, subject to whether Saiful’s cousin can be brought to testify at the inquiry. If so, Nov 15 has been set aside for him to testify.

Parties to the inquiry were also told to file and exchange their submissions by Jan 19 next year; and their replies, if any, by Jan 31.