The inquiry has been going on for over a year, with 40 witnesses called to the stand. The whereabouts of both men remain unknown.

At the start of proceedings, Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai made it clear that the hearing today was called by the panel to clarify certain issues, following the written submissions of all parties concerned.

“It is not for the panel to deliver any decision (today),” he said.

Koh was reportedly abducted on Feb 13, 2017 in Petaling Jaya by a group of men in a convoy of cars while on his way to meet a friend, while Amri went missing on Nov 24, 2016 after leaving his home, also to meet a friend.

Koh was allegedly being investigated for attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity while the authorities suspected Amri of spreading Shia teachings through his civil society group Perlis Hope.

Oral submissions today kicked off with Amri’s family lawyer David Morais.

Mah had asked him to clarify how many witnesses had seen Amri being abducted. Morais said there were three: a passerby on a motorcycle named Syed Amri, the owner of Mak Lang restaurant Saiful Afdzan and his cousin.

However, only Syed Amri was produced at the inquiry.

“Syed Amri was on the opposite side of the road on his motorcycle, and saw ahead of him what he thought was an accident.

“However, when he rode past, he saw something else. He saw three large cars, which were dark, boxing in another vehicle, believed to be Amri’s vehicle,” he said.

Morais then told the panel that in the case of Saiful Afdzan, an arrest warrant was issued but never executed.

Mah then asked a police observer present what had transpired.

The officer said Saiful Afdzan had already been charged in court, but as he was not present, an arrest warrant had been issued. He said police were still unable to locate him.

Morais then pointed out that Saiful Afdzan had only been interviewed by police a year after the incident, although his discovery as a potential witness was made when Amri Che Mat’s wife Norhayati Ariffin had lodged the second police report on Dec 8, 2016.

Also raised by Morais in his submissions was the manner in which Amri was abducted. He called it the boxed-in manoeuvre, adding that this was a well-known manoeuvre used by the police.

Morais further raised the issue of the way in which police had treated the matter – as a mere missing persons case.

“They say he is missing. That is all. They do not accept there is an abduction,” he said.

Morais pointed to a lack of forensic examination in the case, citing how there was no serious forensic testing of the car.

“The assumption that only Amri was in the car… we find that quite absurd. Stickers and road tax were removed. Certain documents were removed,” he said, adding that three of the four windows were smashed.

To a question by Mah on whether Amri’s fingerprints were found, Morais replied “we do not know”.

“It is incomplete. There were no clear fingerprints. We have not seen that forensics test. The issue here is who conducted a search of the car? And there was no clear attempt on the search,” he said.

Morais then questioned the whereabouts of Saiful Bahari, the owner of a gold Toyota Vios which was seen surveying Amri’s house. He said Saiful had since vanished without a trace.

Morais said Saiful, a contract worker working for the special branch in Kuala Lumpur, simply stopped showing up at the office in late 2017. He said the efforts to locate him had been at best piecemeal.

“The only effort they made is to knock on the door of his house, and to see if he was there. “His car… the road tax and the insurance… they are all alive. Where is he? Why is he not brought in?” he asked

To this, police observers said they were not prepared to answer any additional questions by Morais, and that they were only prepared to answer three questions submitted by the panel earlier.

“We were caught by surprise and are not prepared to answer in detail the additional questions. We need time to prepare,” one of the police observers present said.

Mah then said as proceedings flowed, various issues would come to mind.

“We are not in a straitjacket. Police can comment on any of the issues. Perhaps you have not been following the trial. I do not see any surprises really. These are issues which have been raised. We take note of what you said,” he said.

Morais later sought clarification on the testimony that Amri’s wife, Norhayati, gave to the panel about Sergeant Shamzaini Mohd Daud telling her that her husband had been abducted by Bukit Aman.

Police denied her statement and her claims about Shamzaini.

Mansoor Saat, who appeared for the Bar Council, in his oral submissions said that Norhayati’s statement was corroborated by her daughter’s statement.

“It is not probable for Norhayati to lodge a report against the police with such damaging content.

“It is also not probable for a police officer to spend two hours at the house of a Malay Muslim woman, when her husband is missing, to talk about business.

“There must be something more than that. Norhayati’s statement is relevant and admissible,” he added.