THE Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) public inquiry into missing activist Amri Che Mat resumes today, with the activist’s wife taking the stand. 

On January 22, Norhayati Ariffin, who was the first witness called to testify, caused a stir when she said she suspects Perlis religious authorities, state mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Shahidan Kassim of being responsible for her husband’s disappearance.

She told the panel that the two had condemned Perlis Hope, an organisation set up by her husband, to help the poor in the state.

The inquiry also heard the testimony of security guard Yousri Khalid, who allegedly witnessed Amri’s abduction. 

During the inquiry, police observer Sentul police chief R. Munusamy discredited Yousri and accused him of lying.

Munusamy said the testimony given at the inquiry and the police report lodged were different.

Amri was abducted 550m from his home in Padang Behor, Kangar. Police later found his car in Bukit Chabang.

The 43-year-old, who was part of the 1997 Malaysian Mount Everest expedition team, had reportedly told his eldest daughter that he was going out that night. He has four daughters, aged between 10 and 19.

In her police report, Norhayati said there had been unknown cars and motorcycles parked near their home the day the activist went missing.

The inquiry is chaired by Suhakam commissioners Mah Weng Kwai, Aishah Bidin and Dr Nik Salida Suhaila Nik Saleh.

The panel aims to determine whether Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri’s abduction, as well as the disappearance of two others – Joshua and Ruth Hilmy – in 2016, are cases of enforced disappearance sanctioned by the state.

The Malaysian Insight brings you live updates of today’s proceedings.

3.40pm: On whether Amri was involved in nikah mutaah, Norhafizal said he doesn’t know. 

Amri’s family lawyers then ask Norhafizal if Asri had mentioned it during their meeting. 

Norhafizal said he was unsure. 

Police observers then asked Norhafizal what was discussed at the Perlis Mufti Department. 

To which Norhafizal said again that he couldn’t remember as the meeting was years ago.

Police observers then asked him could it be that nikah mutaah was mentioned at the meeting but he couldn’t remember. 

Norhafizal said he would have remembered if it was nikah mutaah as it was a hot issue. 

The inqury ended and will resume tomorrow.

3.25pm: The questioning then moved on to the meeting between Amri and Asri at the Perlis Mufti Department. 

Norhafizal said the day after the raid at his home they went to the Perlis Mufti Department.

“There were about 12 people there and the meeting lasted an hour. 

“Asri had asked questions about Shia and the complaints they had received.

“I can’t remember much because it happened two years ago.” 

Suhakam officers then ask if Amri had confessed anything to Asri. 

Norhafizal said Amri had confessed to Asri he was Shia.

3.05pm: Suhakam officers ask Norhafizal if he is involved with Perlis Hope. 

Norhafizal replied he was the treasurer for the organisation. 

“I’m one of the persons that sign the cheques and I also help build homes for the poor and distribute rice.” 

2.45pm: Suhakam officers asked Norhafizal if he was present during the raid on Amri’s house.

Norhafizal said he was present when police and Asri came to raid the house.

“Asri said the reason for the raid was because they had received complaints from village folk that Amri was involved in Shia.

“Asri then asked if they could enter the house, and I allowed them in because I was scared. There were so many people around.

“Asri then asked where was Amri, and I told him that I didn’t know.”

Norhafizal said Asri asked him to tell Amri to come to the Perlis Mufti’s Department. 

2.35pm: The inquiry panel calls in the fourth witness – Norhayati’s brother, Norhafizal.

Suhakam officers asked him when did he find out about Amri’s disappearance.

Norhafizal said he found out when he got a call from police.

Suhakam officers then asked if he knows that Amri had been investigated by the authorities and the Perlis Mufti’s Department.

Norhafizal said he does not know.

2.25pm: Amri family lawyers asked Anuar, when police questioned him, why did he tell them that he thought the authorities were involved?

Anuar said this was because there was a Facebook post on Bukit Aman’s meeting with Asri.

The lawyers said the Perlis mufti and police had a meeting one month before Amri went missing.

The lawyers asked Anuar if he thinks that Bukit Aman should explain the meeting, to which he replied, yes.

1.05pm: Amri family lawyers asked Anuar when was the last time he spoke with police. 

Anuar said the last he spoke with police, was with Inspector Koh from Kangar in January.

“Koh called me and a few of my friends to come and identify a suspect they had caught in relation to Amri’s disappearance.

“When we reached the police station, Koh showed us a picture of a man in ‘lokap’ clothes.

“He then asked if we knew the suspect. We all replied that we didn’t know this person.”

The lawyers then asked Anuar who he thought had abducted Amri.

Anuar said he believes that whoever took Amri is connected, has money and is not afraid (to commit the abduction).

The inquiry breaks for lunch.

12.35pm: Amri family lawyers asked Anuar if there are any updates from police.

Anuar said Inspector Koh told him that the case had been referred to Bukit Aman.

“When I asked who can we check with at Bukit Aman on Amri’s case, Koh said, he doesn’t know.”

12.20pm: Amri family lawyers asked Anuar if there was anything else that Amri’s cousin had noticed about the vehicles.

Anuar said he was told that the vehicles were located 300m from Amri’s house.

“His cousin also managed to get the number plate of the gold Toyota Vios – PFC 1623.

“We then gave the information to police. Police told us it was a fake number plate.”

11.55am: Amri family lawyers asked Anuar Ismail, who is Amri’s friend, about the suspicious cars seen near Amri’s house before he went missing.

Anuar said Amri’s cousin had noticed the vehicles a few days before the activist went missing.

“His cousin told us that there was a Toyota Vios, a Honda Civic and and three pickup trucks.

“The car windows were tinted. and he couldn’t see anyone inside. He also told us that the engine was running, and the car lights were off.”

11.20am: Commissioner Aishah asked Norhayati about Asri saying their office had received complaints on him.

She then asked if Norhayati knows of any complaints made to the Perlis mufti’s office.

Norhayati said Asri’s statement is not true.

“Amri also never spoke about any complaints.”

The inquiry takes a short break.

11.10am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati if Amri had been married before.

She said he had been married from 2005 to 2010.

The lawyers then asked her if that marriage was “nikah mutaah”, to which she replied, no.

Amri family lawyers asked what courses her children are taking in Iran.

Norhayati said they are taking different courses, which are all in the Persian language.

11.05am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati if her husband had gone into “nikah mutaah” (temporary marriage), as claimed by Asri in his interview.

She replied, no.

The lawyers asked her what is “mutaah”, to which she replied, temporary marriage.

11am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati if Asri had mentioned that during the raid on her house, it was filled with pictures of Shia imams and there was also an area serving as a place of worship for Shias.

Norhayati said she has never seen any pictures of Shia imams, and there is no such area serving as a place of worship.

10.45am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati about an interview that Asri gave in January.

The lawyers asked her if Asri had said, in the interview, that police were not rough or had not shouted at their children.

Norhayati said that is not true, and that she heard police shouting at her child.

The lawyers then asked Norhayati who was the first to arrive at her home, to which she replied, a group of people and police.

10.30am: Amri family lawyers showed Norhayati a Facebook post by Perlis Mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin in January.

The lawyers asked her to read the content of the post.

Norhayati said in the post, Asri said they (Amri) had said there is a connection to Shia teachings.

“He said, in his post, to look at the pictures taken during the raid on my house on October 21, 2016.”

The lawyers then asked Norhayati if there is proof in the Facebook post to show any connection to Shia teachings.

She replied that there is nothing in the post to show any connection.

10.10am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati about details on her children, which had been discussed in the previous sessions.

They showed Norhayati a picture, and asked her to identify the seven girls in the picture.

She said one of the girls is her adopted child, who is studying at a university in Iran.

The lawyers showed her a second picture, and asked her to identify the people in it.

She said the second picture is of her biological daughter standing in front of her university in Iran.

The lawyers then showed Norhayati a third picture, and asked her to identify the people in it.

She said one of the people in the picture is her adopted daughter, standing in front of her university in Iran.

9.50am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati when did he return to Malaysia, to which she replied, November 24, 2016.

The lawyers then asked her to point out, in the passport, where is the entry stamp to indicate he had returned to Malaysia.

Norhayati said there is no stamp.

“It’s normal for Padang Besar Immigration not to stamp the passports of those entering (the country) after less than a month (abroad).”

9.35am: Amri family lawyers asked Norhayati, the first witness, to clarify certain issues raised during the sessions in January.

The lawyers asked her if she brought Amri’s passports for verification.

She hands the passports to the inquiry panel.

The lawyers then asked Norhayati when was the last time Amri went to Thailand, to which she replied, November 8, 2016. – March 19, 2018.