More in news

News

Thursday, 17 May 2018 | MYT 12:00 AM

Special Branch officers took Amri, says activist’s wife

KUALA LUMPUR: Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman were the ones who abducted Perlis activist Amri Che Mat, his wife claims in a police statement.

Norhayati Mohd Ariffin made the allegations in a statement to the police.

Counsel Larissa Ann Louis read out the statement yesterday at the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (Suhakam) public inquiry on the disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh, Amri, Joshua Hilmi and his wife Ruth Sitepu.

In the statement, she alleged that her husband was being monitored by the Special Branch police officers before he was abducted on Nov 24, 2016 in Kangar, Perlis.

“According to a police officer, my husband was being monitored before he was taken away by a group of police officers working under orders from a Special Branch police officer from the Perlis police headquarters,” Louis quoted from the statement.

The statement also alleged that the Bukit Aman team was the same one that had abducted Koh as he had supposedly proselytised people.

He (the police officer) claimed that he wanted to notify me about this as he did not want to aid (such act) as it was not right, the police report read.

Kangar police headquarters investigating officer Khor Yi Shuen, who was testifying at the inquiry, said he had no knowledge of the Special Branch men said to be involved in the disappearances of Amri and Koh.

Khor clarified that he only knew that the police report was made on May 15 at 6.30pm after receiving a phone call in which he had met up with the police officer who had taken Norhayati’s statement.

Norhayati made the police report on May 15 at 4pm at the Shah Alam police station.

In a swift response to the allegations, Bukit Aman Inspector-General of Police (Secretariat) Corporate Communications head Senior Assistant Commissioner Datuk Asmawati Ahmad confirmed they received a police report on the missing person.

“A thorough investigation is being carried out. We urge all parties to refrain from making speculation that could jeopardise investigations,” she said.

Koh’s wife Susanna Liew, on hearing these allegations, said this was her suspicion all along.

“When the CCTV footage came out, it looked very much like a special operations job but no one admitted to it,” she said.

Liew said she was relieved that it was not some “radical extremist” that had taken Koh but that he was “maybe just arrested”.

“They (the police) probably know where he is. Something can be done to release him,” she said.

Counsel Gurdial Singh, who acts for the Koh family, said they want to recall and also call in additional witnesses to Koh’s case.

“Under the Suhakam Inquiry Act, if you are under oath and make a false statement, you have (committed) perjury and can be charged under the Penal Code,” he said.