A SUHAKAM panel today rejected a police observer’s request for lawyers representing Joshua and Ruth Hilmy and another witness to stand down from the public inquiry because it was a conflict of interests.

Chief commissioner Hishamuddin Yunus said that there was no conflict of interests in the public inquiry after hearing arguments from both sides.

“We find that both lawyers can be part of the inquiry to represent the family,” the inquiry heard today.

The panel today is hearing the testimony of Josiahnandan Emmanuel Peter, 25, who is the third witness to testify on the couple’s disappearance in 2016.

He and his sister Grace Thangamalar used to live with the couple when they were studying in college in Petaling Jaya from 2015 to 2017.

His father Peter Pormannan was a close friend of the couple, whom he had met in 2012.

Police observer, chief of IGP’s secretariat (legal) Mohd Azman Ahmad Sapri argued the lawyers should recuse themselves because they should be called as witnesses to the inquiry.

“We request that they be recused and called as witnesses since they are involved in the investigations.

“The lawyers had interviewed the witness (Josiahnandan), so they might have evidence and facts pertaining to the case.”

The police observer said the lawyers should not be observing the proceedings until they are called to testify.

Lawyer Cyren Tiu, representing Ruth’s family, said they have been called to assist Suhakam to ascertain the truth of what had happened to the missing activists.

“We don’t see how there is a conflict of interest in going to meet Josiahnandan.

“We were not there to interview him for a witness statement, but to ascertain what had happened.

“If the police had interviewed him, shouldn’t they also be excluded from the inquiry?” he said.

Tiu said that their duty was to assist the panel and let them decide if it was enforced disappearance.

As the panel called their fourth witness, Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (Caged) spokesman Rama Ramanathan, Azman immediately objected again, arguing Rama had nothing to offer and his testimony would be based on assumption.

“Our argument is whether his testimony will facilitate the panel in reaching a decision.”

Hishamuddin then asked the police why Rama’s testimony wouldn’t benefit the panel.

The police said that they want people who are involved directly in the case.

“What he is offering is just what he is getting from the public and previous public hearings.”

Hisahamuddin said this was a public inquiry and not a court of law, so some rules did not apply.

“We can accept hearsay evidence. We would like to welcome any member of the public to come forward and assist this inquiry.”

Little is known about the status of the couple, who vanished from Petaling Jaya on November 30, 2016.

Ruth’s siblings also lodged a police report on the couple’s disappearance in 2018. Her family live in the fishing village of Nambiki in northern Sumatra, Indonesia.

International human rights laws define enforced disappearance as when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organisation, or by a third party with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of a state or political organisation. – March 2, 2020.