THE Suhakam inquiry looking into the disappearance of four activists can accept hearsay as evidence as it is not bound by the same standards as a court of law, said commissioner Mah Weng Kwai. 

He was commenting on Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s statement yesterday that Suhakam’s conclusion that two of the missing persons – pastor Raymond Koh and Perlis activist Amri Che Mat – were taken by police Special Branch, was based on hearsay.

Mah today said the inquiry is allowed to accept hearsay evidence under Section 14(1) (a) and (d) of the Suhakam Act.

Under the act, the panel is not constrained or limited by the Evidence Act 1950 in the reception of evidence during the public inquiry. 

A flexible approach is taken, where evidence not usually admitted in criminal and civil proceedings may be received by the public inquiry.

“As far as the evidence is concerned, I don’t know if the prime minister has read our two reports.

“If anyone wants to have views on this, they should read and analyse it. 

“Everything stated in the report was based on the evidence (submitted). 

“I think there should be emphasis that we have done sufficient fact-finding for a task force to re-investigate the cases,” he said at the Suhakam headquarters today. 

Dr Mahathir yesterday said Suhakam should provide evidence to support its conclusion that the police were involved in the enforced disappearances of the two activists. 

“I think they must produce some evidence, this is merely hearsay,” the prime minister had said.

Mah said evidence in a criminal trial should be beyond reasonable doubt.

He said it is important to understand that an inquiry has different outcomes than a trial.

“It is an inquiry, not a trial, and no one is going to get locked up or charged. 

“In a criminal case, when someone gets tried, the evidence should be beyond reasonable doubt.

“They (courts) have the Evidence Act and are strictly governed by it. 

“In the Suhakam Act, … hearsay becomes admissible.” – April 4, 2019.