Awaludin Jadid, who previously led the Special Branch’s social extremism division, said his unit was only tasked to “monitor”, “collect” and “disseminate” intelligence information regarding extremism activities in the country to the relevant agencies.

He said none of the officers in his division, known as E2, took part in operations to arrest individuals.

“I did not receive specific information about Amri from (police officer) Razman Ramli, only general security information in Perlis,” Awaludin said in his testimony.

He was testifying in a lawsuit brought by Amri’s wife, Norhayati Ariffin, against the police, the government and several others, including himself, over the conduct of the investigations by the authorities into Amri’s disappearance.

Also named as defendants are the home minister, former home minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, and former inspectors-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar and Fuzi Harun.

Norhayati claims that the authorities breached the law and their statutory duties, committed misfeasance in public office, and were negligent in the conduct of their investigations.

Awaludin also denied that Special Branch officers acted on his orders to “abduct” Amri eight years ago.

Cross-examined by Norhayati’s lawyer, Surendra Ananth, as to the basis for the police’s categorisation of Shia teachings as “extreme”, he said it was done by the Special Branch director, whom he refused to name.

“It was included in the (Special Branch) charter. The charter defined what ‘extremism’ meant and delegated duties to every division (in relation to how extremism was to be handled).

“We also took the cue from (several) state religious departments, which said that Shia (teachings) cannot be spread,” he said.

Asked about his previous testimony before a Suhakam inquiry in which he said “the spread of Shia can lead to a national security threat”, Awaludin said the police at the time were monitoring teachings emanating from other countries, and fatwas issued by several states which had outlawed the sect.

“The notes of proceedings (taken during the Suhakam inquiry) were unfair to us (police). No one from the AGC (Attorney-General’s Chambers) defended us. (They) are supposed to be our lawyers,” he said.

Amri left his home in Kangar at about 11.30pm on Nov 24, 2016. His car was found at a construction site at the Bukit Cabang Sports School early the next morning.

Suhakam held a public inquiry into his disappearance between 2017 and 2019.

In 2021, the inquiry concluded that Amri was a victim of an enforced disappearance carried out by the state, specifically by the Special Branch.

The hearing before Justice Su Tiang Joo continues on June 13.