Su Tiang Joo J:

As a matter of fundamental first principles, in my considered view, it would be a grave travesty of justice if the person who is allegedly responsible for the disappearance of the victim can be heard to assert that the victim has no locus standi and should be denied access to even cross over the threshold of the Courts of Law to seek justice.

It is concomitant with a fair trial with parties constitutionally entitled to the equal protection of the law, that the truth should serve to level the battleground, more so, when an individual takes on the might of the State and, in the process, the shield of privilege, if any, should give way to the test of relevancy.

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  This action concerns the alleged enforced disappearance of the first plaintiff, Koh Keng Joo, and who is also known as Pastor Raymond Koh or Pastor Koh (“P1’), on 13.02.2017. The plaintiffs assert that the disappearance was executed in an organised, coordinated operation by police personnel or persons involving the first to twelfth defendants (“D1 to D12”) for which the thirteenth defendant, the Government of Malaysia or the State (“D13”) is vicariously liable.

[2]  The defendants assert that the second plaintiff, Liew Sow Yoke or Susanna Liew (“P2”) who is the wife of the first plaintiff, has no locus standi to initiate this suit on behalf of P1, and, in any event, the plaintiffs’ action should be dismissed for failure to prove any liability against D1 to D12 and, by reason thereto, D13 should not be made vicariously liable and, thus, the action should be dismissed with costs.

[3]Â Â After a trial over 32 days commencing 6.6.2023 and ending on 8.7.2025, with 21 witnesses called, and upon submissions having been presented in writing by the plaintiffs (E204, E206 and E214), the defendants (E209), and by the amicus curiae from the Malaysian Bar (E211), this Court had pronounced judgment on 5.11.2025 with broad grounds given. The broad grounds were to be subject to the full grounds of judgment. These are the full grounds.

Parties

[4]Â Â P1 is a Malaysian citizen and a Christian pastor. He was last seen by P2 on 13.2.2017 at about 10:00 a.m. and was abducted at about 10:45 a.m. and, since then has not been seen or heard from.

[5]  P2 was, by Order of this Court dated 6.6.2023, appointed as the litigation representative to act for and on behalf of P1. This was made pursuant to Order 15 rule 17 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) with the right to conduct the action for nd on behalf of P1 with retrospective effect equivalent to nunc pro tunc, and,

by way of a further Order, that the intitulement of this action be deemed to be so amended with retrospective effect as from the date of filing of this action on 11.2.2020. P2 sues in her personal capacity and on behalf of P1.

[6]Â Â The defendants are as below:

i)The first defendant Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid Bin Abu Bakar was the Inspector General of Police until 4.9.2017 (“D1”), and subsequently replaced by Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun on 4.9.2017 (“D2”).

ii)Dato’ Awaludin Jadid (“D3”) was the Principal Assistant Director of the E2 Social Extremism Division of the Special Branch of D12.

iii)Datuk Huzir Muhamed (“D4”) was the Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”) of the Intelligence and Operations Division, and was directly in charge of the Special Task Force on Organised Crime (“STAFOC”).

iv)Fadzil Ahmat (“D5”) was the Head of Task Force who investigated the disappearance of P1, while also reporting to D4.

v)Supari Muhammad (“D6”) was the investigating officer (“10”) in the Task Force headed by D5, while also reporting to D4.

vi)Khor Yi Shuen (“D7”) was an Inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”) and the investigating officer of the disappearance of Amri Che Mat.

vii)Hazril bin Kamis (“D8”) was a superintendent, heading a special elite police unit under STAFOC