THE Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) inquiry into the disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh and three other Malaysians enters its sixth day of hearing today.

The inquiry resumes after a 10-day break following a visit on November 3 by Suhakam commissioners to the site where Koh was abducted in Petaling Jaya on February 13.

The visit was prompted after the inquiry panel could not get the necessary information from a police witness during proceedings.

During questioning, ASP Supari Muhammad said the commissioners would need the approval of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) if they wanted a sketch and photos of the crime scene.

This led Mah to call for a site visit together with Koh’s family members, police and lawyers. 

At the site the entourage checked out the houses where the CCTVs were located and where Koh’s car was boxed in during the abduction.

The inquiry is seeking to determine if the cases of Koh, Pastor Joshua Hilmy and his wife, Ruth, and social activist Amri Che Mat, are cases of enforced disappearance, a term for abductions carried out with the authorisation or support of the state or a political organisation.

Witness police Inspector Ali Asrar refused to cooperate with the panel when they had asked if he kept a diary of the events that occurred on February 13.

Ali acknowledged that he had an investigation diary (ID).

When Mah asked Ali to show the panel the diary, he was told by Ali that the commissioners needed the consent of the AGC to see it.

Mah said the panel was entitled to see the ID under the Suhakam Act. 

Police observers said the ID was classified and could not be handed over to the panel.

“We would like to ask for a postponement to refer to the Attorney-General’s Chambers before handing over the ID because the investigations are ongoing.”

An agitated Mah said the panel might as well “pack up and leave” if every request it made for evidence was denied “because investigations are ongoing”.

Mah then told an officer to get the ID from Ali. The officer did so and then handed the ID to the panel.

The panel has also heard testimonies from Koh’s wife Susanna Liew, his son Jonathan, Roeshan Gomez, who was driving behind Koh’s car when the abduction took place, Harapan Komuniti director G. Sri Ram, and former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar.

Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai chairs the panel made up of Suhakam commissioners Aishah Bidin and Dr Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleha.

The Malaysian Insight brings you live updates from today’s hearing.

5.05pm: Today’s proceedings end and will resume tomorrow with former Petaling Jaya councillor Peter Chong and a Selangor Islamic Religious Department officer. 

4.50pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari if the four suspects are religious extremists, to which he replies no.

Supari says that the four suspects and the wife of the suspect shot dead have no connection to the Koh case.

Lawyers then ask Supari if it is possible Khalid was referring to another group in his press statement, to which he replies yes, that is a possibility.

Lawyers then ask about the involvement of activist and former Petaling Jaya councillor Peter Chong’s in the Koh case, to which he replies there is no connection.

Supari says police had investigated his claims of going to Thailand after receiving a phone call that there was information on Koh.

“Chong said he was kidnapped but couldn’t identify his abductors. We found that he has no connection with the case.”

4.35pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about the suspects caught Kuala Kangsar, Kuantan and Kota Baru. 

The lawyers say that, according to Khalid, police had arrested three members of a human trafficking and drug smuggling group and that the wife of one of the suspects had been shot dead. 

“Khalid said that all the suspects were brought to Kuala Lumpur.”

Supari says that Khalid had made a mistake and that the wife of the suspect that was shot dead was not caught. 

“Three suspects are Malay and the fourth, an Indian man, was caught in Subang Jaya.”

The lawyers then ask Supari if he was taking a different position from Khalid, to which he replies “yes”. 

Supari says the four suspects were remanded for 13 days and then released.

“Selangor Criminal Investigation Department chief SAC Fadzil Ahmat said the case was ‘NFA’ (no further action).”

The lawyers then ask Supari why Khalid had said that this group was involved in Koh’s abduction, to which Supari said he didn’t know. 

4.20pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari what evidence did he receive from Kedah investigating officer ASP Toh after they have raided the home in Kg Weng Dalam. 

Supari said he got pictures of Koh, his car, houses and two set of number plates – WMS 5168 and BNW 217. 

Lawyers then said Khalid said they found the number plate of Koh’s car, to which Supari clarified that it was pictures of the number plate and not the physical plates. 

3.55pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari if he is aware of the list of items seized in a raid on a suspect’s house in Kampung Weng Dalam.

The suspect, believed to be involved in human trafficking and drug smuggling at the northern border, was shot dead by police.

The lawyers say Khalid had issued a statement, saying police found Koh’s number plate, as well as pictures of him and his house in Prima 16, in the raid.

They then ask Supari, who had briefed Khalid on the case, about this, to which he replies he does not know.

3.25pm: The lawyers say DSP Awaludin Jadid had said, in a seminar at International Islamic University Malaysia in Gombak in October last year, that there were 300 to 500 apostates in the country.

The lawyers say Awaludin had urged civil society organisations to formulate an action plan to stop the “Christianisation” movement in Malaysia.

“Awaludin was quoted as saying it was better that they discuss an action plan on the issue.”

Supari says he knew Awaludin, but has not met him.

The lawyers then ask Supari if he had investigated Awaludin and his police team in connection with Koh’s case, to which he replies, “No”.

The lawyers then ask Supari if there is a rogue police unit that had an extremist ideology, to which he replies that he is not sure.

2.55pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari if he is investigating the possibility that groups linked to Zakir are involved in Koh’s case. 

Supari replies in the negative. 

“I’m in the Criminal Investigation Department and take orders from my superiors. We will investigate if we receive any information.

“I agree (that people with extremist views should be investigated).”

Lawyers then ask Supari is he knows whether there are police who follow the (Wahhabism-Salafism) school of thought, to which he replies it is possible. 

2.35pm: The inquiry takes a 10-minute break.

2.15pm: Koh family lawyers comment that Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom had said in Parliament that the Wahhabi-Salafism ideology was not appropriate for Malaysia. 

Lawyers then ask Supari if it possible that the group of extremists Khalid referred to subscribed to the Wahhabism and Salafism school of thought, to which Supari replied yes. 

Lawyers ask Supari if he knows about controversial Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, who is wanted back in India for terror links, and that there is a group in Malaysia called Perkasa that is protecting him. 

Lawyers ask Supari whether Perkasa has been investigated. 

Supari says police have not investigated Perkasa. He agree with the lawyers that Perkasa is relevant to the case. 

1.50pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about Khalid’s comment during a press conference about there being a group of religious extremists. 

Khalid had said police were looking at the possibility of links between the abduction and extremist activities.

“Is there a group of religious extremists? Are they from a different group of thought from the moderate Muslims?” the lawyer asks.

Supari says that it is possible. He also agrees it is relevant that the group be investigated. 

12.40pm. Hearing breaks for an hour for lunch.

12.35pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari if there are “powers that be” who are upset that moderate Muslims are joining candlelight vigils for the pastor.

Supari says it is a possibility.

Lawyers ask Supari if he believes there are powers out there who want to change the sentiments of the moderate Muslims, to which he replies that it is possible.

12.30pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari if he has considered the possibility that Koh’s reported proselytising is a red herring. 

“Koh has gone missing for months but the police have been focused on whether Koh was involved in proselytising. 

“Susanna and her son Jonathan were also asked about Koh proselytising. 

“Is this to distract the people from the fact that Koh was abducted by the authorities?”

Supari says he has not considered the question of whether Koh was proselytising is an attempt to divert attention.

12.25pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about a police report that was lodged by teenagers in Perlis claiming the pastor was proselytising to them. 

Supari says the teenagers never lodged a police report. 

“We only took statements from the teenagers. It was a non-governmental organisation that had lodged a police report.”

12.05pm: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about a statement by former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar about Koh and two others proselytising in Perlis.

Lawyers say Khalid has said that the report was a lead in the investigation.

“Before Khalid makes a statement he has to be briefed. Did you brief him? Who had briefed the former IGP?”

Supari says he did not brief Khalid but briefed Selangor Criminal Investigation Department chief SAC Fadzil Ahmat.

“I briefed Fadzil and he was the one who briefed Khalid. I don’t deal directly with the IGP.” 

11.40am: Shouldn’t all CCTVs be in good working condition to aid police in fighting crime, the lawyers ask Supari.

They also ask Supari if MBPJ would have been informed if the CCTVs were not working.

Supari says they did inform MBPJ about the faulty cameras.

“We wrote to MBPJ about the faulty cameras, and they replied that the maintenance costs are high, and that’s the reason the cameras are faulty.”

11.25am: The Suhakam panel takes a 10-minute break. 

11.20am: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about the CCTVs in Petaling Jaya that are under the jurisdiction of MBPJ and whether they are linked to IPD Petaling Jaya.

Supari agrees that MBPJ cameras are connected to the IPD and there are officers watching the live feed. 

Lawyers ask Supari if the IPD has recordings of what they receive on the feed.

Supari says they can only view and cannot record. 

“All recordings are done by MBPJ and we don’t do any recordings.”

Lawyers ask if the police would know if the cameras are out of order, to which Supari replies yes. 

11am: Koh family lawyers ask Supari if Koh left his house in Prima 16 and then went by the Puncak Damansara to the LDP and then to Jalan SS4B/10, where he was abducted, to which he replied yes. 

Lawyers ask Supari if the abductors’ convoy after the abduction travelled went by Jalan Bahagia and Jalan Majlis then cut through SS25/23 on to Jalan Persiaran Tropicana, to which he replied no. 

Koh family lawyers say the police are suppressing evidence. 

“The police are suppressing evidence but telling more than what is actually said. How can we confirm anything if they are saying all the CCTVs are spoilt? 

“How do you we know the police have checked all the CCTVs if there is no evidence to show us that the police have checked the CCTVs?” 

10.25am: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about the CCTV recording of the Damansara-Puchong Highway (LDP).

Supari says the CCTV recording was of the area at 10.20am on the day Koh was abducted, but before the abduction.

“What we saw in the recordings was three SUVs a Honda Accord and a Toyota Vios that was travelling on the LDP  towards Puchong. All the vehicles looks like the vehicles in abduction.”

Lawyers ask Supari if he can produce the CCTV recording on the OPS for the panel, to which he replies he cannot because it is one of his documents. 

Lawyers ask Supari if he has got any other recordings of the LDP. 

Supari says he has written to the Malaysian Highway Authority for recordings but has been told all the cameras are out of order.   

10.10am: Koh family lawyers ask Supari about the abductors’ escape route after they got Koh. 

Supari says the abductors could have taken any route as there were many side lanes leading to Jalan Bahagia and Jalan Majlis. 

9.50am: Koh family lawyers ask Supari whether police have the post-abduction recordings of the scene from the cameras on Jalan Bahagia and Jalan Majlis.

Supari says there are three cameras – two belonging to the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) and one the traffic police. 

“I wrote to MBPJ to ask for the recording but they said there were no recordings as the camera was not working. 

“As for the traffic police camera, we were informed that the camera only functions if there is an offence and when someone breaks the law. “

9.35am: Koh family lawyers ask Supari whether Koh abductors would have observed the pastor’s movements and reconnoitred the area before the abduction.

Supari agree that it is possible.

The lawyers ask Supari how many CCTV recordings of the abduction do the police have and he replies three.

Supari says two are from CCTVs in homes in Petaling Jaya and the third is from CCTV on a highway.

9.20am: Hearing commences with witness ASP Supari Muhammad taking the stand. – November 13, 2017.