DECEMBER 10 — I refer to the report ‘Nothing to do with race’: Lawyers explain why court ordered RM3m in Amri’s case, RM36m in Raymond Koh’s case.

Lawyer Surendra Ananth, who represented the wife of one of the missing men, Amri Che Mat, said that there were two different cases or lawsuits.

Indeed so.

The first case Suit No. WA 21NCVC79-11/2019. The plaintiff is Norhayati binti Mohd Ariffin, who is the wife of Amri Che Mat. 

In her claim, the plaintiff averred that on 24.11.2016, Amri left his home and had since disappeared. 

Police reports were lodged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that the police had a duty to investigate, which they had failed to do so effectively, either by reason of incompetence or more ominously, not wanting to do so, fearing where the investigations might lead to.

Amri has remained untraced. To the plaintiff, there is no closure.

The plaintiff named 21 defendants in the lawsuit, the home minister and the government included. 

She sued for breach of the right to life under Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution, negligence, breach of statutory duty and, misfeasance in public office.

She claimed for general damages, including aggravated damages of RM2 million, exemplary damages of RM1 million, special damages of RM14,457.52 with interest on the damages at 5 per cent p.a. from the date of judgment until full realisation, and costs of RM250,000.00.

After a trial which ran for 23 days from June 1, 2023 until July 9, 2025, with 27 witnesses called (16 by the plaintiff and 11 by the defendants), and 22 bundles of documents produced, the learned High Court Judge Su Tiang Joo delivered his oral judgment on November 5.

Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants in terms of the reliefs sought, namely:

1. Special damages in the sum of RM14,254.00;
2. General and aggravated damages in the sum of RM2 million;
3. Exemplary damages in the sum of RM1 million;
4. Interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on all the damages awarded from the date of judgment until full realisation; and
5. Costs of RM250,000.

The learned judge’s written judgment was published on December 2 and can be read here.

Notice the learned judge’s finding that the plaintiff has locus standi – that is, the standing or right to sue – at the outset of his judgment.

The second case is Suit No WA-21NCvC-17-02/2020. The plaintiffs are Koh Keng Joo, who is also known as Pastor Raymond Koh or Pastor Koh, and Liew Sow Yoke or Susanna Liew, who is the wife of the first plaintiff.

The lawsuit concerned the alleged enforced disappearance of the first plaintiff on 13.02.2017. 

The plaintiffs assert that the disappearance was executed in an organised, coordinated operation by police personnel or persons involving the first to twelfth defendants, thirteenth defendant, the government being vicariously liable.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs named 13 defendants for breach of constitutional rights under Articles 5, 8 and 160 of the Federal Constitution; breach of statutory duties under Section 20(3) of the Police Act 1967, Sections 107A, 119 and 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code; misfeasance in public office; conspiracy to injure; negligence; and vicarious liability to be found against the government.

After a trial over 32 days commencing June 6, 2023 and ending on July 8, 2025, with 21 witnesses called, and upon submissions having been presented in writing by the plaintiffs and the defendants, and by the amicus curiae (friend of the court) from the Malaysian Bar, the learned High Court Judge Su Tiang Joo delivered his oral judgment on November 5.

Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the reliefs sought, namely:

For the first plaintiff

1. General damages of RM10,000.00 per day as from February 13, 2017 until the defendants disclose with certainty the whereabouts of the first plaintiff.
2. Aggravated damages of RM1 million for the suppression of evidence and prolonged delay in bringing closure to the discovery of the whereabouts of P1.
3. Exemplary damages of RM1 million by reason of inter alia oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional acts of D1 to D12 in combination amongst them.

The damages adjudged in favour of the first plaintiff are to be deposited into a trust and interest generating account to be held on trust by persons or institutions, whose names, character references and curriculum vitae are to be supplied to the Court for appointment as trustee or trustees until the whereabouts of the first plaintiff is ascertained and or disclosed.

For the second plaintiff

1. General and aggravated damages of RM2 million for the suppression of evidence mental anguish and distress, and the prolonged delay in bringing closure to the discovery of the whereabouts of the first plaintiff;
2. Exemplary damages of RM1 million similarly by reason of, among others, oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional acts of first to twelfth defendant in combination amongst them.

Interest on the above sums of damages shall from the date of judgment to the date of full realisation at the rate of 5 per cent p.a, and costs of RM250,000.00 to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

The learned judge’s written judgment was published on November 28 and can be read here.

Notice also the learned judge’s findings that the plaintiffs have locus standi to sue.

Clearly from the above, the sums or quantum of damages were awarded pursuant to the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in each of the cases.

As rightly explained by Surendra Ananth, the different sums have nothing to do with the ethnicity of the plaintiffs or the missing men.

So, it is most unfortunate – to say the least – that “someone [should be] making a racial statement which had questioned why is a Chinese life worth more than a Malay life.”

But it is similarly most unfortunate that someone should say the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) move to immediately file an appeal against the learned judge’s decisions “demonstrates a lack of accountability from the government”, calling the appeal as “akin to the government refusing to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in the matter at hand”.

As I wrote a month ago, respect the learned judge’s decisions. Respect the right of the aggrieved parties to appeal too.

The appeal has nothing to do with not acknowledging responsibility over a matter.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.