Suhakam didn't conclude state-sanctioned abduction - Police in Pastor Koh lawsuit
Suhakam did not conclude there was a state-sanctioned abduction of Pastor Raymond Koh - this was claimed by the police and several other parties being sued over Koh's disappearance in 2017.
According to a copy of the statement of defence sighted by Malaysiakini today, the defendants alleged that the inquiry by the national human rights commission concluded that the pastor (above) was subjected to enforced disappearance.
Suhakam concluded that this was perpetrated by the investigative unit of the police - the Special Branch - but was not sanctioned by the government, the defendants further alleged.
The statement of defence reads...
Suhakam did not conclude there was a state-sanctioned abduction of Pastor Raymond Koh - this was claimed by the police and several other parties being sued over Koh's disappearance in 2017.
According to a copy of the statement of defence sighted by Malaysiakini today, the defendants alleged that the inquiry by the national human rights commission concluded that the pastor (above) was subjected to enforced disappearance.
Suhakam concluded that this was perpetrated by the investigative unit of the police - the Special Branch - but was not sanctioned by the government, the defendants further alleged.
The statement of defence reads: "Suhakam did not conclude there was an abduction. Based on the Suhakam Report on page 70, paragraph 153, it states 'The Panel is of the considered view that the enforced disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh was carried out by agents of the state namely, the Special Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur'."
"Furthermore, the Suhakam Report at paragraph 155 of the same page states 'The Panel further finds that there is no evidence to support the contention, as suggested by counsel on behalf of Pastor Raymond Koh, that Pastor Raymond Koh was abducted by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support, or acquiescence of the state'," the defendants alleged.
The statement of defence was filed by 13 defendants through a senior federal counsel at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry on June 15.
The defendants are former inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar, former IGP Mohamad Fuzi Harun, seven other police officers, former Special Branch contract worker Saiful Bahari Abdul Aziz, the IGP (who is not named), the Royal Malaysian Police, and the government of Malaysia.
The defendants are being sued by the missing pastor’s wife Susanna Liew, in order to compel them to identify and reveal his whereabouts.
The defendants also claimed that the Suhakam inquiry was merely a view that is not binding in court and can be challenged.
On April 3 last year, it was reported that a Suhakam public inquiry came to the conclusion that social activist Amri Che Mat (photo) and Pastor Koh, who vanished in 2016 and 2017 respectively, were victims of enforced disappearance.
The three-member inquiry panel also unanimously concluded that the perpetrators were members of the Special Branch from police headquarters Bukit Aman.
According to Paragraph 28 (f) of the statement of defence, the defendants also claimed there was no secret movement responsible for the victims' disappearances.
"There does not exist a secret movement to make Amri and Pastor Koh disappear by force," they claimed.
The defendants’ assertion was in response to Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, and 33 of the main legal action, which touched on an alleged seminar held at the International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) on Nov 10, 2015.
The suit’s statement of claim alleged that the seminar touched on the topic of a purported nationwide Christianisation movement and that the seminar allegedly urged various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) nationwide to tackle the issue.
Reply to the defence
Meanwhile, in a reply to the defence also sighted by Malaysiakini today, plaintiff Liew countered that although Suhakam concluded there was no evidence of state-sanctioned abduction, it was still consistent with the inquiry's finding that the alleged enforced disappearance was carried out by the Special Branch.
"The plaintiffs (Liew and first-listed plaintiff Pastor Koh) will also rely on the findings and conclusion of Suhakam, including that the unlawful abduction of the first plaintiff (Pastor Koh) was carried out by the Special Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur," Liew said.
"In this regard, the finding ‘that there is no evidence to support the contention… Pastor Raymond Koh was abducted by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support, or acquiescence of the state', is not inconsistent with the conclusive finding that the unlawful abduction was carried out by the Special Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur," Liew (photo) added.
In relation to the defendants’ claim that the Suhakam panel finding was not binding in court, the plaintiff contended that the public inquiry is empowered, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, to require evidence at the inquiry, which can be accepted in court proceedings.
According to the section, the Commission shall have the power to require that evidence, whether written or oral, of any witness be given on oath or affirmation, such oath or affirmation being that which could be required of the witness if he were giving evidence in a court of law, and to administer or cause to be administered by an officer authorised in that behalf by the Commission an oath or affirmation to every such witness.
Liew also countered that what the defendants now plead in paragraph 28 of the statement of defence allegedly “gives a distorted interpretation of the clear and unambiguous context and sequence of events”.
As at press time, Malaysiakini is trying to reach out to the plaintiffs’ legal representative, law firm Messrs Jerald Gomez & Associates, over the matter.
According to the main suit, the rights of the plaintiffs had been allegedly breached through Pastor Koh’s abduction, the failure to account for his whereabouts, negligence, and/or malfeasance in public office.
As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking a court order to compel the defendants to identify and disclose Koh’s whereabouts.
In addition, they want the police to be instructed to arrest Saiful Bahari, who is at large, and have him brought to court to give sworn testimony on his and his vehicle’s alleged involvement in Koh’s abduction.
They are also seeking a court declaration that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs have been breached, general and exemplary damages, costs, interests, and any other relief the court may see fit.
Koh was abducted from his car in Petaling Jaya on Feb 13, 2017, while Amri was abducted sometime around midnight on Nov 24, 2016.
Last November, Amri’s wife Norhayati filed a suit against 21 defendants in relation to her husband’s disappearance, including some of the same defendants named in Liew’s suit.
