A High Court judge has questioned the years-long police inaction in the investigation into missing activist Amri Che Mat, despite the Home Ministry’s latest claim that the probe never stopped.
In his 126-page judgment released yesterday, Justice Su Tiang Joo said no explanation was given on whether any investigations were carried out between June 2019 and 9 July 2025. His full grounds follow his 5 November ruling ordering the federal government to pay Amri’s family over RM3 million for negligence.
Su noted that the first defendant — the police inspector initially assigned to Amri’s case — told the court he assumed he was no longer the investigating officer (IO) after being transferred out of Perlis and after a special task force (STF) was formed in May 2019 to act on Suhakam’s findings that Amri was a victim of enforced disappearance by the Special Branch.
However, the judge highlighted that the inspector received no instructions relieving him of his role and that no proper handover took place. “In short, as from June 2019 until the end of the trial of July 9, 2025, no further investigations were done,” Su said. He also noted that although the STF had recommended disciplinary action against him, the inspector was instead promoted to Assistant Superintendent in April 2021.
Previously, Su had found that authorities failed to probe key aspects of the case, breached statutory duties, displayed poor investigative standards and did not keep Amri’s family informed.
What did the court identify as specific breaches?
Su said the defendants initially refused to disclose the police’s missing persons investigation guideline, “Administration Direction No 12/2012 Standard Operating Procedure for Investigating Missing Person,” which the court later ordered them to produce. After disclosure, the defendants argued that the SOP did not require mandatory compliance — a position the court rejected as hollow, noting the SOP existed precisely to set out required actions.
Based on testimony, the first defendant failed to comply with nearly two-thirds of the SOP. Su also cited serious delays in interviewing witnesses, with one statement obtained more than a year after Amri vanished.
DNA samples from Amri’s vehicle were sent for analysis only five months after his disappearance, despite usual practice requiring two to four hours. Su rejected the IO’s “kekangan masa” (time constraints) excuse as unacceptable.
The judge also criticised the failure to investigate a gold Toyota Vios reportedly seen surveilling Amri’s home, and the refusal to produce statements from its owner. He said police made no attempt to coordinate separate teams despite the same vehicle being linked to Pastor Raymond Koh’s enforced disappearance.
Su further found that authorities did not adequately explore whether Amri’s Shia beliefs were connected to an involuntary disappearance. He stressed that even if Shia followers were considered a security threat, they were entitled to due process.
“When the plaintiff (Amri’s wife) asserted that she feared the worst… it must logically mean that she feared Amri had been abducted and murder(ed), yet no investigation along this line was taken,” he said.
The court also found shortcomings in attempts to trace Amri via his mobile phone and in updating his family, noting that an earlier mistaken assumption that the IO had been removed led to nearly two months without investigations in 2017.