Police: Suhakam didn't find us lax in investigating activist disappearance

Suhakam’s 2019 report of the alleged enforced disappearance of activist Amri Che Mat did not state that police investigation into the matter had been lax or ineffective, claimed the police.

The police made this claim in their Statement of Defence against a lawsuit over Amri’s (above) disappearance on Nov 24, 2016. The Statement of Defence was filed on June 15 this year.

They were disputing the claim in the lawsuit that the police investigation into the matter was done in a lax manner or ineffectively. They also disputed Suhakam’s finding that Amri was the victim of enforced disappearance.

“The decision of Suhakam’s inquiry made on April 3, 2019, did not state that police investigation into the disappearance of Amri Che Mat was done in a lax (manner) or ineffectively.

“The defendants state that the plaintiff’s allegation that no investigation was done following Suhakam’s finding is a mere afterthought of the plaintiff because a Special Task Force was established to look through the Suhakam inquiry’s report over the disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, as well as ascertain matters raised in the report.

“The defendants state that Suhakam’s findings are not binding on the court because it was made from a public inquiry and based on determined terms of reference proposed to the government or parties involved,” claimed the defendants in the Statement of Defence sighted by Malaysiakini today.

On June 26 last year, Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin announced that the Home Ministry had established a Special Task Force to reinvestigate the alleged enforced disappearance of Amri and Koh.

The announcement of the Task Force came on the heels of the Suhakam finding on April 3 last year that Amri and Koh were victims of enforced disappearance purportedly committed by members of the Special Branch of the Bukit Aman police headquarters.

On Nov 18 last year, it was reported that Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Ariffin (photo) filed the legal action over Amri’s disappearance, with 21 individuals and entities named as defendants.

Apart from the police and the government of Malaysia, the other defendants included were the Home Minister (who is not named), former home minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, former inspector-generals of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar and Mohamad Fuzi Harun, as well as the former head of Special Branch's social extremism division, Awaludin Jadid.

It was reported that Norhayati filed the legal action over the police’s alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation into Amri’s disappearance.

The Statement of Defence also referred to a portion of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim which made the allegation that even after the Suhakam finding was issued in April last year, the defendants allegedly failed to carry out a "serious" investigation.

The defendants further claimed that Norhayati has no cause of action to sue them as proper investigation has been carried out over the plaintiff’s police reports regarding Amri’s disappearance.

“The defendants stress that no cause of action exists in this claim and the plaintiff has no right to any relief or damages because proper investigation has been carried out by PDRM (Royal Malaysian Police) on the police reports lodged by the plaintiff over Amri Che Mat’s disappearance,” they alleged in the Statement of Defence.

The defendants claimed that this is borne out by police investigation into Norhayati’s first report over Amri’s disappearance lodged in 2016.

“There is no statement nor firm evidence that can be relied on to support the plaintiff’s claim that Amri Che Mat was abducted at near midnight on Nov 24, 2016, at C33, Kg Padang Behor, 01000 Kangar, Perlis,” the defendants alleged.

“The Defendants furthermore state that proper steps in carrying out and continuing with the investigation have been taken, among them, on every names given by the plaintiff in the plaintiff’s police report and also during recording of the plaintiff's (statement by police) under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the defendants claimed.

Meanwhile in a Reply filed on Aug 24 this year, Norhayati reiterated that the defendants failed to take sufficient steps in the investigation.

The plaintiff quoted a portion of Suhakam’s finding on April 3, 2019, that “The above illustrates that in general there was no sense of urgency in the police investigation, in fact, a lackadaisical attitude was adopted by the police officers in the investigation into the disappearance of Amri Che Mat”.

Norhayati further claimed that she had not received any updates from the Special Task Force in regards to her husband's disappearance.

“The mandate of the Special Task Force was not informed to anybody until today (date of Reply, namely Aug 24 this year).

“The plaintiff did not receive any development from the task force or the police regarding Amri Che Mat’s case.

“The defendants should look into Suhakam’s ruling by carrying out investigation and not by examining Suhakam’s report and ascertaining matters that have been decided,” Norhayati claimed.

While conceding that the Suhakam finding is not binding on the court, the plaintiff claimed that the said finding is persuasive and can guide the court in regards to the legal action.

When contacted by Malaysiakini today, Norhayati’s counsel Larissa Ann-Louis said that the legal action is fixed for case management on Dec 14 before Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mariana Yahya.

Editor's note: Based on legal advice, the commenting feature for the above article has been disabled.

A year on, families of Amri, Raymond still waiting for answers

Suhakam didn't conclude state-sanctioned abduction - Police in Pastor Koh lawsuit

Suhakam to resume Joshua Hilmy, Ruth hearing after conditional MCO ends

Susanna Liew, missing pastor's wife, wins int'l courage award