A WITNESS who allegedly saw Amri Che Mat being abducted is among those who will testify at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) public inquiry into the missing activist today.

Syed Amri Syed Abdul Jalil allegedly witnessed Amri’s Toyota Fortuner being stopped by three four-wheel-drive vehicles and two sedans. Syed Amri then related this to a friend.

Yesterday, the inquiry heard the testimony of Amri’s wife Norhayati Arrifin, her brother Norhafizal Arrifin and Anuar Ismail, a friend.

During the inquiry K. Muthiah one of the lawyers representing Amri’s family asked Norhayati if her husband had gone into “nikah mutaah” (temporary marriage), as claimed by Perlis Mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin in January.

During proceedings, K. Muthiah one of the lawyers representing Amri’s family asked Norhayati if her husband had gone into “nikah mutaah” (temporary marriage), as alleged by Perlis Mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin in January.

She denied it.

On January 22, Norhayati, who was the first witness, caused a stir when she said she suspected Asri and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Shahidan Kassim of being responsible for her husband’s disappearance. 

Anuar, who also testified yesterday told the panel that whoever took Amri was connected, had money and was not afraid (to commit the abduction).

The 43-year-old Amri was abducted 550m from his home in Padang Behor, Kangar in Perlis in late 2016. Police later found his car in Bukit Chabang. He has four daughters, aged between 10 and 19.

He was also part of the 1997 Malaysian Mount Everest expedition team.

The inquiry is chaired by Suhakam commissioners Mah Weng Kwai, Aishah Bidin and Dr Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh.

The panel aims to determine whether Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri’s abduction, as well as the disappearance of two others – Joshua and Ruth Hilmy – in 2016, are cases of enforced disappearance sanctioned by the state.

The Malaysian Insight brings you live updates of today’s proceedings.

11.45am: Commissioner Mah asked police and Bar Council observers if they have any questions for Syed.

Both parties replied, no.

Mah said he is very surprised that the observers have no questions.

“Given that this (Syed) is an important eyewitness in the case, the reason that there are no questions is that, all that has been said is accepted (by all observers).”

The inquiry ends and will resume tomorrow.

11.30am: To establish the distance between the traffic light and Syed, lawyer Jay played a video showing the area.

He asked Syed to confirm if it was the location of the incident, to which Syed replied, yes.

11am: Lawyer Jay asked what helmet was Syed wearing, as they want to establish that he had a good view of the incident.

Syed said he was wearing a “half helmet”.

Commissioner Mah asked Syed how many times he has met with police.

Syed said he met with police one week after the incident in 2016, and in January this year.

“My statements were recorded by police.”

Lawyer Jay then asked if there has been any other communication with police between November 2016 and January this year.

Syed replied, no.

The inquiry takes a short break.

10.30am: Commissioner Mah asked Syed to explain about the burly man he saw in the incident.

Syed said he saw the big-sized man walk up to the four-wheel drive and open the driver-side door.

“He was wearing a collared T-shirt and jeans. After that, I didn’t see anything and rode off.”

Lawyer Jay asked Syed about the other two four-wheel drives seen in the incident, and whether anyone got out of the vehicles.

Syed said no one got out, and that he saw only one person – the burly man.

10.25am: Referring to the sketch, Amri family lawyer Jay Moi asked about the location of the tyre shop and whether the lighting had been adequate for Syed to witness the incident.

Syed said the lighting was sufficient, the vehicles were visible and there were no obstructions.

“I was riding on the left side of the road, and the incident occurred on my right.”

Jay asked what was the colour of the car, and what make.

Syed said it was a four-wheel drive, but he did not notice the colour.

He told the lawyer that the incident occurred in less than a minute.

10.10am: To get a feel of what transpired, the panel asked Syed to sketch the locations of the cars in the incident he had witnessed.

He made a sketch, and explained where he was located during the incident.

He said he was 300m away, in the opposite direction of the vehicles.

“The street lights were out, but there was some light coming from the tyre shop opposite the road.

“So, I managed to see what happened. There was also another motorcycle, and a few other vehicles stopped behind (where) the incident (took place).”

Commissioner Mah asked Syed what had drawn his attention to the incident.

He replied that he thought an accident had occurred.

9.50am: Syed said after he witnessed the incident, he went back home and relayed the incident to his father.

Suhakam officers asked when did he hear about Amri’s disappearance.

Syed said the next day, at his restaurant, the gas delivery man told him that Amri had gone missing.

“I then told the man about the incident the night before, and we believe that it could be related to Amri’s disappearance.

“The same day, two police officers came to see me about the incident.

“I was then called to the Kangar police station to give my statement to Inspector Khor.”

9.35am: The inquiry into Amri’s disappearance resumes with Syed, a witness to the activist’s alleged abduction, being called to testify.

Suhakam officers asked Syed about the night Amri went missing.

Syed said he was returning from the gym at 12.30am and had stopped at the traffic light in Padang Bohor, where he witnessed the incident.

“I was on a motorcycle when I saw the four-wheel drive and other cars.

“They boxed in the Toyota Fortuner, and then a burly, tall man from the vehicle in front got down and proceeded to open the door of the Toyota.

“Then, I rode off. I didn’t see anyone.” – March 20, 2018.