PASTOR RAYMOND KOH
141.5.
On 2 November 2017, ASP Suppari tes�fied that he did not go to Fauzi’s
house and searched and seized the items allegedly rela�ng to Pastor
Raymond Koh. ASP Supari also tes�fied that he did not receive the
alleged items.
141.6.
On 23 November 2017, SAC Fadzil tes�fied that the items allegedly
rela�ng to Pastor Raymond Koh which were seized from Fauzi’s house
were handed to ASP Suppari (by Seizing Officer, ASP Toh from Pengkalan
Hulu).
141.7.
On 7 December 2018, Dato’ Asri maintained in his evidence that the
contents of his Police Press Statement were accurate and true, thereby
contradic�ng the evidence of IGP Khalid.
142.
In view of the material contradic�ons men�oned above, the Panel concludes that
the items allegedly rela�ng to Pastor Raymond Koh were never seized from
Fauzi’s house on 17 June 2017 and if such items were indeed “seized” then they
must have been placed there or “planted” by the officers concerned.
Alterna�vely, if the items allegedly rela�ng to Pastor Raymond Koh were not
placed or “planted”, the Panel concludes on a balance of probabili�es that all the
said officers who had tes�fied about the items having been seized from Fauzi’s
house had said so without any factual basis whatsoever and had concocted the
evidence.
143.
The Panel therefore rejects the evidence of the several police officers on the
purported seizure of the items allegedly rela�ng to Pastor Raymond Koh as being
not credible. This would mean that without any credible evidence that the items
rela�ng to Pastor Raymond Koh were in fact seized from Fauzi’s house, this
debunks the conten�on made by IGP Khalid that the disappearance of Pastor
Raymond Koh was somehow related to Fauzi and/or the group of persons alleged
to be drug and arms traffickers up North.
(iii) Informa�on Provided by Sgt Shamzaini to Norhaya�
144.
The Panel is empowered under Sec�on 14(1)(a) of the Act (i) to procure and
examine all such evidence whether wri�en or oral and (ii) to examine all such
persons as witnesses, if it is necessary and desirable.
145.
Pursuant to Sec�on 14(1)(d) of the Act, the Panel is further not constrained by
provisions in the Evidence Act 1950 in admi�ng any evidence, whether wri�en
or oral, which may be inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings. As such, the
48