KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 — Did you wonder why the High Court had last month ordered the Malaysian government to pay two different compensation amounts over the abductions of activist Amri Che Mat and Pastor Raymond Koh, namely RM3 million and over RM36 million?
Lawyers explained that this had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the two missing men, but was because the Malaysian government had been sued over different things in the two court cases.
Lawyer Surendra Ananth, who represented Amri’s wife in her civil lawsuit against the government, said he had come across someone making a racial statement which had questioned “why is a Chinese life worth more than a Malay life”.
But Surendra had pointed out that the two lawsuits were different, as Amri did not sue together with his wife, and as Amri’s wife sued over the police’s negligence in investigations and did not also sue over his abduction.
“So the difference in the award of sums has nothing to do with the race of the individual. Just thought I’d make that very clear, so no aspersions to be cast on the judge,” he said at a forum yesterday titled “Justice for the Disappeared - Understanding the Human Rights Impact of the Raymond Koh & Amri Che Mat Decisions”.
Surendra said the High Court judge had said that his decisions on the compensation amounts were bound by how the two families’ lawyers had presented their cases differently.
A check by Malay Mail showed that High Court judge Datuk Su Tiang Joo had in an epilogue in his 126-page judgment on Amri’s wife’s lawsuit remarked that it was strikingly similar to Koh’s wife’s lawsuit, except for one key difference which caused the compensation amounts to be different --- Koh had sued the government too, while Amri did not sue.
The High Court judge wrote: “In Pastor Koh’s case, the abducted person, Koh Keng Joo, was named as a plaintiff and had claimed for relief for himself through his wife who was made his litigation representative. However, in this case, the abducted person, Amri Che Mat, was not named as a plaintiff and, thus did not seek relief for himself.”
What did the High Court order?
On November 5, the High Court ordered the government to pay a total of RM3 million in compensation to Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Ariffin, including for the mental anguish she had suffered and the government’s oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions.
In Amri’s wife’s lawsuit, she had sued the police over the way it had conducted investigations on her husband’s November 24, 2016 disappearance by claiming they were negligent and had acted in bad faith (misfeasance in public office), but did not sue them over Amri’s abduction.
Surendra said not suing the government over Amri’s abduction was a “judgment call” by lawyers, due to factors such as the different evidence available in Amri’s case, including the lack of videos unlike the footage of Koh’s abduction.
Also on November 5, the High Court ordered the government to pay a total of RM3 million in compensation to Koh’s wife Susanna Liew, including for her mental anguish.
But as Koh also sued the government through his wife, the High Court also ordered the government to pay Koh more than RM33 million ---- namely RM1 million for suppressing evidence and prolonged delay in bringing closure on where he is now; RM1 million for oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions; and RM10,000 for every day that his location remains unknown.
Since the RM10,000 per day is counted from Koh’s abduction on February 13, 2017, the accumulated sum on November 5, 2025 came to more than RM31 million, as he had been missing for more than 3,100 days or eight years already.
Lawyer Datuk Jerald Gomez, who represented Koh and Koh’s wife Susanna Liew, explained why the government was ordered to pay a higher total sum of over RM36 million in his clients’ case.
As both Koh and his wife are treated as two separate legal entities, the High Court had ordered compensation to be given to them separately, based on what they had sued the government for, he said.
“Susanna is suing on a different cause of action, which is her distress and emotional trauma, and that is what the court is giving damages for.
”But Pastor Raymond Koh is suing for deprivation of liberty, of his life and breaches to his life. So the court is awarding Pastor Raymond Koh, that is the reason why a substantial amount of damages is given to Raymond Koh,” he said, explaining that this was why the High Court had ordered the compensation for Koh --- now RM33 million and still going up everyday --- to be deposited and held on trust until his location is determined or disclosed.
“Whereas what Puan Norhayati and what Susanna got is exactly the same, there is no difference,” he said, referring to how both women were awarded RM3 million each.
Jerald said the High Court judge was following the law and the precedent based on a 2025 Court of Appeal decision which awarded compensation of RM15,000 per day for loss of liberty, and stressed that the RM10,000 per day figure for Koh was “not something judge Su plucked out of the air”.
[[[ insert: 20251206RM15.jpg
Lawyer Datuk Gurdial Singh Nijar, who also represented Koh and Koh’s wife in the lawsuit, said the High Court’s decision compensates Koh for every day that he remains abducted and detained unlawfully and that this is a big difference with Amri’s case.
“The interesting thing about this is therefore it puts pressure on the police and on the government to give information as to what happened to Pastor Raymond Koh, so that there must be a closure date so that the RM10,000 per day will end. But if you do not give that info, the RM10,000 a day will continue.
“So this is a brilliant stroke by the judge, because now the government is under pressure to keep paying RM10,000 a day until you make the disclosure. Otherwise there’s no real sanction for refusing. Because the position the government has always taken is ‘we do not know, it’s not us, how can you say it’s us, where is the proof you saw a group of police officers abduct him?’” he said at the same forum.
The forum was organised by the National Human Rights Society (Hakam), and had also featured these speakers: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus, former Suhakam commissioner and retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mah Weng Kwai, Hakam chairman Datuk Seri M. Ramachelvam as well as the wives of Amri and Koh.
In April 2019, Suhakam’s inquiry concluded that both Amri and Koh were victims of enforced disappearance carried out by the police’s Special Branch.
The Attorney General’s Chambers on November 6 said it would appeal against the High Court’s two decisions in Amri’s and Koh’s cases.
