LAWYERS will submit their oral submissions today at the Suhakam public inquiry into the disappearance of pastor Raymond Koh and Perlis Hope founder Amri Che Mat with no clear indication on the whereabouts or the fate of the two missing activists.

After a public hearing which stretched for more than a year, and with 40 witnesses taking the stand, the inquiry has failed to conclusively discover what happened to the two activists who have now been missing for two years.

Lawyers representing the two families will today submit if there was foul play involved and if their disappearances were cases of enforced disappearances, or state-sanctioned.

Koh was reportedly abducted on February 13, 2017 in Petaling Jaya by a group of men in a convoy of cars while on his way to meet a friend, while Amri went missing on November 24, 2016 after leaving his home, also to meet a friend.

Koh was allegedly being investigated for attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity while the authorities suspected Amri of spreading Shia teachings through his civil society group Perlis Hope.

Police investigations into their disappearance have drawn a blank.

The inquiry had also encountered a few setbacks like missing witnesses and facing numerous postponements.

During proceedings into Amri’s disappearance, Saiful Afdzan, a restaurant owner in Perlis who claimed to have seen the activist, did not show up despite being summoned.

Police had also failed to locate another witness, the owner of a gold Toyota Vios, believed to be involved in Amri’s abduction.

The families are concerned that the authorities have failed to shed light or provide any new evidence into the disappearances. 

On February 13 this year, the families of Koh and Amri accused police of having a hand in the disappearances. 

They submitted a memorandum to Dr Mahathir Mohamad urging the prime minister to meet them and listen to their side of the story and why they suspect police of having a hand in the disappearance of both men.

The inquiry will next probe the disappearance of Pastor Joshua Hilmy and his wife, Ruth, to ascertain if they are cases of enforced disappearance.

The Malaysian Insight brings you the proceedings live:

2.15pm: Mah questioned police observers on who had found the items at the suspect’s house. 

Police observers said the first team, which was led by Hazril, had found the items. 

Mah asked who else had gone to the suspect’s house apart from Hazril. 

Police said it was the bomb squad.

Mah asked if police officers Selangor police CID chief SAC Fadzil Ahmat and DSP Supari Muhammad had gone to the suspect’s house as claimed by Khalid. 

He replied no and said that they went to Pengkalan Hulu to meet Huzir to get the evidence. 

Mah said that Suhakam will deliver their decision on April 3. 

The inquiry ends. 

1.45pm: Gomez said his theory is that police had planted evidence as an afterthought when the suspect was found dead.

He says the raid at the suspect’s house was conducted after the alleged human trafficker was shot dead.

The first time the photos were mentioned, the IGP made references to the house that belonged to Koh but not the photo of the person whom he claimed to be only a chinese man.

This was one week after the seizing of these items.

He says it is important to note that CP Huzir had testified that he was informed of a photo of Pastor Koh that was discovered and he had called SAC Fadzil. Later, Hazril testified that he recognised the face of Pastor Koh on that day itself.

One month later, Khalid maintained his story and added that this same group was involved in the abduction of Pastor Koh and linked to another group in Southern Thailand.

“According to IGP Khalid, the first team didn’t find anything related to Pastor Koh. It did not arouse any suspicion.

“Then after researching the background of the deceased, a second team from the Bukit Aman Serious Crimes Division went to the house one or two days later and they allegedly discovered photos relating to Pastor Koh.”

“The photos were also not added to the search list mentioned or displayed at a press conference. But later when both the search lists were produced by Supt Hazril. It had different handwritings but Supt Hazril maintained that it was written by him.”

1.15pm: Koh family lawyer Gomez submits to Mah that the family’s position is that the photos were planted as opposed to being discovered at the dead suspect’s home.

He said there were glaring contradictions in relation to the securing of the photos referring to former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar, Police Commissioner Huzir and the Stafoc unit leader Supt Hazril the team at the shootout in Baling, Kedah and the raid at Pengkalan Hulu, Perak.

Gomez said Khalid’s previous testimony was that the second team of police officers from Bukit Aman found photographs of Koh, his house, vehicle and car number plates at the suspect’s home.

Hazril later testified that he found the evidence but Khalid said it was Bukit Aman’s serious crime division which discovered the items.

“The contradictions on which team and who found the photographs, when it was found and from which house was it found together with the fact that it was not produced during the inquiry though repeatedly requested, leaves reasonable suspicion and doubt to the story line and narrative given by the police.”

Gomez also says that Khalid had said it was a group of people involved, but Kedah CPO Asri said that the deceased worked alone and was only assisted by his wife.

In addition, Task Force head SAC Fadzil and investigating officer ASP Supari both testified that the group which Khalid referred to had nothing to do with the Koh’s abduction.

12.50pm: Gurdial said the panel should not reject Norhayati’s statement for Koh’s case.

“There is no prejudice because no one is being blamed. We are just trying to establish the evidence. 

“She also said that Amri was abducted by the same team that took Koh.

“For all this reasons, it is prudent to admit the evidence.”

12.35pm: The inquiry on the submissions continues with Pastor Raymond Koh case.

Koh’s family lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar said that Norhayati’s statement should be used in the pastor case as the proceeding is an inquiry and not a criminal case.

“She said that Amri was under surveillance and so was Koh when he stopped at the checkpoints.

“She also said that Koh was taken because he proselytising and Amri was involved in deviant teachings.”

11.50am: Police observers were then asked to clarify about the testimony that Amri’s wife, Norhayati Ariffin, gave to the panel about Sergeant Shamzaini Mohd Daud saying that her husband was abducted by Bukit Aman. 

Police said they had denied Norhayati’s statement and claims on Shamzaini. 

Bar Council lawyer Mansoor Saat then said that Norhayati’s statement was corroborated by her daughter. 

“It’s not probable for Norhayati to make a damaging testimony.

“It’s also not probable for a police officer to spend two hours at a Malay Muslim lady’s home when her husband is missing.

“So her testimony is admissible.”

The inquiry takes a short break.

11.35am: Mah explained to police that as they go along with the questions on the submissions, various other issues will come to mind.

“We are not in a straitjacket. Police can comment on any of the issues. 

“Perhaps police observers have not been following the event. These (the questions) are not surprises, really.

“We take note of what you have said.”

11.25am: Police observers then interjected and said they were not prepared to answer any additional questions presented by Morais.

Police said they were only prepared to answer three questions that were earlier submitted by the panel.

“We were caught by surprise and are not prepared to answer in detail the additional questions. 

“We need time to prepare.”

11.15am: Morais then raised the issue of the gold Toyota Vios’ owner who had vanished without a trace. 

“This was a contract worker at Pulapol for 18 years and he just decided not to show up to work.”

Mah then asked Saiful Bahari’s whereabouts and what had happened to the Vios.

Morais said the car was in Pulapol but now they do not know where it is.

10.55am: Another issue that Morais raised to the panel was the lack of forensic evidence.

He also said that the forensic evidence gathered was not seen by the lawyers.

“There wasn’t any serious forensics testing of Amri’s car. 

“They made an assumption that Amri was the only one in the vehicle.”

Morais added that police said there were no clear fingerprints found, even those belonging to Amri. 

“The issue here is who conducted a search of the car and there was no clear attempt on the search.”

10.30am: One of the crucial matters that Morais raised during the submissions was on how Amri was abducted. 

He said that when Amri’s car was boxed in, its looked like a manoeuvre that police might use. 

Morais said that Saiful was a critical witness to clarify all this. 

He also questioned why Saiful was interviewed one year later. 

“Police had stopped short of saying it was a missing person’s case.

“It was not a missing person’s case but a case of abduction,” he said.

10.15am: Mah asked Amri’s family lawyer David Morais to clarify how many witnesses saw the Perlis Hope founder being abducted. 

He said there were three witnesses: Syed Amri, a passerby on a motorcycle, the owner of Mak Lang restaurant Saiful Afdzan and his cousin. 

Mah asked police observers what had happened to Saiful and were they able to locate him.

Police said that he was summoned to court but he failed to attend so the court issued an arrest warrant. 

Police also said they still could not locate Saiful. 

10am: Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai said they have gone through all the submissions filed by all the lawyers.

This sitting is called for clarifications and not to make any decision, he said.

“It’s not for the panel to deliver any decision. We will fix a date for a decision by the end of the month.” – March 6, 2019.