KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5 — The High Court has ordered the Malaysian government and the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) to pay RM10,000 per day in damages to the family of Pastor Raymond Koh, starting from the date of his abduction until the authorities disclose his whereabouts.
Berita Harian reported Judge Datuk Su Tiang Joo as saying that both parties are responsible for his disappearance, which was reported on February 13, 2017.
The court found the defendants liable for negligence, abuse of public power, breach of statutory duty, and violation of fundamental liberties in connection with Koh’s disappearance.
In allowing the lawsuit filed by Koh’s family, Judge Su determined that one or more of the defendants — comprising serving and former police officers — were involved in the abduction and acted under "a single directive" eight years ago.
The pastor, who founded the non-governmental organisation Harapan Komuniti, was kidnapped by a group of armed men while driving along Jalan SS4B/10, Petaling Jaya, on his way to a friend’s house, on February 13, 2017.
He has since been missing for 3,188 days, bringing the amount which the police and the government must pay to over RM31 million.
Koh’s wife Susanna Liew filed the lawsuit against the police and the government, alleging state involvement in her husband’s disappearance and misconduct in the handling of the investigation.
Judge Su instructed PDRM to reopen investigations into Koh’s disappearance based on the findings of the Special Task Force and to submit a report to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) every two months.
He also directed the Inspector-General of Police to remove four officers previously involved in the investigation and replace them with personnel unconnected to the case.
Judge Su added that, on the balance of probabilities, at least one or more of the defendants acted directly or indirectly in Koh's abduction and enforced disappearance.
He concluded that the evidence of state involvement was "strong and convincing", noting that the defendants failed to provide any explanation that could refute their implication.
Judge Su noted that the circumstances surrounding the abduction, the conduct of certain police officers as detailed in the Special Task Force report, the concealment of information, and the similarities with the disappearance of activist Amri Che Mat collectively supported the plaintiffs’ case.
In this instance, the authorities’ actions not only violated fundamental rights under Articles 5 (personal liberty) and 8 (equality) of the Federal Constitution but also demonstrated abuse of public power by senior police officers.
“The police’s failure to conduct proper investigations over a prolonged period despite having early access to key information constitutes a dereliction of statutory duty under Section 3(3) of the Police Act 1967.
“The complacency and concealment of information from the plaintiffs strengthen the claim that the officers involved acted with malice and exceeded their lawful authority,” he said.
Judge Su found that Koh’s disappearance was deliberate, coordinated, and not a random attack — based on CCTV footage and witness testimonies showing the involvement of at least seven vehicles and several masked individuals in the abduction.
The swift, organised operation, including the police’s failure to disclose ownership of a gold-coloured Toyota Vios used in the crime, clearly indicated a conspiracy among certain law enforcement officers.
“The cumulative actions — concealment of information, investigative failures, and attempts to divert attention — collectively depict a pattern of deliberate conduct aimed at achieving an unlawful objective,” he concluded.
