POLICE tried to stop the inquiry into pastor Raymond Koh’s disappearance, said Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai.

They did not produce important witnesses, refused to provide exhibits which were not classified and several police officers who testified were not “free flowing” in their testimonies, Mah told The Malaysian Insight.

To begin with, police were slow to kick off the investigations, in particular, the abduction of Perlis Hope founder Amri Che Mat, he said.

“Only months later did they start questioning people. When they are investigating the abduction, time is of the essence,” the former judge said.

He cited the case of the gold Toyota Vios (registration number PFC 1623) spotted near Amri’s house. 

“A witness had told the inquiry that the Vios and two other vehicles were parked at the same place for three consecutive days. The occupants did not alight from their vehicles and had their engines running.

“The witness even provided the registration number of the car but police initially told us the owner could not be found,” he said.

Suhakam investigators then conducted their own investigations which revealed that the owner of the vehicle was a civilian staff attached to the Special Branch at the Police Training Centre (Pulapol) in Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur. 

When the panel insisted that he be called to testify, police said he could not be located as he had stopped work several months earlier.

“This was questionable as the car owner had been with the Special Branch for 18 years,” Mah said.

“How could he just disappear like that? Our Special Branch is second to none, and yet they could not locate him?”

In the Suhakam report released on Wednesday, it stated that before the inquiry was announced, Uber driver Lam Cheng Nam was charged with extorting RM30,000 from Koh’s son, Jonathan, for the release of the pastor.

During the inquiry, then IGP Khalid Abu Bakar and Selangor CID chief Fadzil Ahmat both ruled out Lam as one of Koh’s abductors.

Months later, Suhakam was informed by Inspector-General of Police Mohamad Fuzi Harun in a letter that Lam had been charged with abducting Koh and since the case was now in court, the public inquiry should cease immediately.

Hearsay accepted in inquiries

Suhakam concluded that Koh and Amri were victims of enforced disappearance and that Special Branch had abducted both of them. 

This, Mah said, was based on both direct and circumstantial evidence and after evaluating all the evidence comprehensively. 

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, however, said the findings were based on hearsay.

“He (Dr Mahathir) is absolutely right. But the conclusions were not based on hearsay evidence alone. 

“There were other direct and circumstantial evidence which the panel relied on.”

He added that unlike a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, in an inquiry, the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities. 

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

“It is an inquiry, not a trial and no one is going to get convicted.”

Koh was abducted on February 13, 2017 in Petaling Jaya while Amri was taken on November 24, 2016 in Perlis.

Case of religious intolerance

A police report was lodged against Koh, months after his abduction, for allegedly proselytising to youths up north.

It was reported that police recorded statements from two youths who claimed they were approached by three men, one of whom was believed to be Koh.

Activist Amri, meanwhile, was under police surveillance over alleged Shia links.

“There is evidence on a balance of probabilities to show that there was religious intolerance in both cases,” Mah said.

“It was religion-based if not, Amri would not be of any interest to anyone.”

He was the founder of Perlis Hope which they claim is a Shia organisation.

“The same was for pastor Koh. There are hundreds of pastors around, so why him?”

Mah said this was where Malaysians have to have more understanding and show more tolerance in religious issues.

Even if the activists were abducted for spreading their own religion and beliefs, there are laws to deal with such situations, he said.

“Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean you can go and take him off the street like that.

“Abducting them is not right. Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he added. – April 8, 2019.