No evidence to prove missing activist was murdered: Police

17th May 2018

PETALING JAYA: Police today maintained there was no strong evidence in the case of missing Perlis activist Amri Che Mat to classify the case as murder.

ACP Roslan Ramli told the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) inquiry that the case could not be classified as a crime without the account of a reliable witness.

He said police had categorised the case under missing persons because there was no eyewitness which could say for sure that Amri was kidnapped.

Roslan, who was the Criminal Investigation Department chief at the Kangar police headquarters before being transferred to the Perlis contingent police headquarters, said the evidence produced was in his opinion, not strong enough evidence of a crime.

“If it was a murder, a body was needed, and if it was a kidnapping, a ransom note would be required,” he said.

Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai, then highlighted the case of Sunny Ang Soo Suan, who was accused of murdering his girlfriend in the 1960s, pointing out that a body was not found, but Ang was still convicted.

The police however, reiterated that there was no credible eye-witness account of Amri’s disappearance.

On the appointment of Inspector Khor Yi Shuen, a more junior officer, to the case, Roslan said he was in charge of monitoring Khor.

“I would receive orders from my chief, and Inspector Khor would receive orders from me and he would report to me,” he said.

Amri, who co-founded NGO Perlis Hope, has been missing since Nov 24, 2016.

The Suhakam inquiry is also investigating the disappearance of Pastor Joshua Hilmy and his wife, Ruth, who were last seen on Nov 30, 2016.

The inquiry had also included the case of Pastor Raymond Koh, who has been missing since February last year after he was abducted by some 10 men in Petaling Jaya.

The inquiry into Koh’s case was discontinued after a suspect was charged in court with kidnapping the pastor. However, Mah ruled today that Suhakam would carry on with the inquiry as the subject matter in court was not the same subject matter as the public inquiry.

Find link to article here: