On February 13, 2017, in the clear light of day, Pastor Raymond Koh was abducted from a public road. CCTV footage captured the chilling efficiency of the operation: a convoy of black SUVs executed a coordinated maneuver to box in his car, masked men in military-style gear emerged, and within 60 seconds, both Pastor Koh and his vehicle were gone. For years, his family and the public were left with a devastating void. His fate, and the identity of his kidnappers, remained a haunting, unanswered question.
Now, after a trial spanning 32 days, a landmark High Court judgment in Koh Keng Joo & Anor v. Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid Abu Bakar & Ors [2025] MLRHU 2812 has provided a devastating official answer. The court’s findings have cut through years of denial and obfuscation, pointing directly at the state itself. This article breaks down the most impactful takeaways from a judgment that has finally revealed the truth behind one of the nation’s most disturbing mysteries.
1. The Abduction Was So Professional, It Mirrored a Police Operation.
The court judgment leaves no doubt that Pastor Koh’s abduction was not the work of common criminals. It was a meticulously planned tactical operation, executed with a level of precision that immediately pointed toward a highly trained, state-level group.
The court noted how the evidence painted a picture of a flawless mission: three black SUVs boxed in Pastor Koh’s car in a coordinated intercept, motorcycles acted as outriders to manage traffic, masked men in black military-looking outfits swarmed the vehicle, and one person was even seen filming the entire event. An eyewitness, Roeshan Celestine Gomez (PW1), was so struck by the professionalism that he immediately described it to the responding police inspector (DW2) as looking like a police operation.
Even the highest levels of the police force acknowledged the kidnappers’ expertise. The then-Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid Bin Abu Bakar (D1), publicly commented on their skill, a statement the court highlighted:
“The people who abducted Pastor Raymond Koh are obviously very meticulous”
2. A Single Car Was the “Smoking Gun” Linking the Abduction to the Police’s Secret Special Branch.
Amidst the fleet of dark vehicles, one car became the critical piece of evidence—the “smoking gun” that tied the crime scene directly to a state agent. The court identified a gold-coloured Toyota Vios with the license plate PFC 1623, clearly visible in the CCTV footage of the abduction.
Investigations later revealed a bombshell fact: the car belonged to Saiful Bahari bin Abdul Aziz (D10), an operative working on contract for the Special Branch of the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and stationed at the Police Training Centre (PULAPOL).
Making the connection even more damning, the court noted that this exact same vehicle was also linked to the enforced disappearance of another man, Amri Che Mat, which occurred just months earlier. This established a clear pattern of state-linked vehicles being present at the scene of abductions. The court found that the police’s failure to disclose this crucial information early in the investigation supported an inference of a cover-up. The official excuse—that the information was confidential—was found to be a self-serving afterthought, shattered by a devastating admission from Inspector Khor Yi Shuen (D7/DW4) under cross-examination. When asked why he withheld the information, he stated it was because it “melibatkan pegawai SB” (involved Special Branch Officer).
3. The Official Investigation Was Riddled with Distractions and Deliberate Obstruction.
The judgment portrays the official police investigation not as a genuine effort to find Pastor Koh, but as a calculated campaign characterized by what the court called the “concealment of information, misdirection of inquiries, and failure to pursue obvious investigative leads.” The court highlighted two key instances of this obstruction.
- The Scapegoat: In a bizarre turn, police charged a man named Lam Chang Nam with extortion related to the case. This happened even though senior police investigators, including the Inspector General of Police (D1) himself, had already publicly stated that Lam was not involved in the abduction. The timing was critical: charging Lam had the immediate and direct effect of suspending the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (SUHAKAM) public inquiry into the disappearance. The charge against Lam was eventually withdrawn, but not before it had served its purpose of shutting down outside investigation.
- The “Planted” Evidence: The court also examined suspicious evidence allegedly recovered from the scene where a criminal named Fauzi was shot dead by police. This evidence included photos of Pastor Koh’s home and car, supposedly linking Fauzi’s gang to the abduction. However, the court noted “suspicious discrepancies in handwriting” on the official evidence seizure forms. The plaintiffs argued forcefully that these items were planted to create a false trail and draw attention away from the state’s involvement.
4. A Police Insider Confessed the Special Branch’s Role in a Secret Late-Night Meeting.
One of the most dramatic moments detailed in the judgment came from the sworn testimony of Norhayati Binti Mohd Ariffin (PW5), the wife of the other disappeared man, Amri Che Mat. She recounted a secret, late-night meeting where a police officer confessed everything.
According to her testimony, Sergeant Shamzaini bin Mohd Daud (D9/DW6) from the Special Branch appeared at her house late one night, overwhelmed by guilt. He confessed that the Special Branch from Bukit Aman (the national police headquarters) was responsible for both abductions. He confirmed that the same team that took Amri was the one that took Pastor Koh, and that the then-Inspector General of Police knew about the operation.
Sergeant Shamzaini explained that his conscience and the change in government gave him the courage to speak out. The court recorded his powerful motivation for revealing the truth.
“‘saya nak mengakulah, dengan kerajaan baru mungkin kes ini akan terbongkar, saya berani cakap, saya tak nak bersubahat, tak nak dosa.'”
(Translation: “I want to confess, with the new government maybe this case will be uncovered, I dare to speak, I don’t want to be complicit, I don’t want to sin.”)
5. In a Powerful Rebuke, the Court Ruled That the State Cannot Silence a Victim’s Family.
The state’s lawyers attempted to have the case thrown out on a technicality, arguing that Pastor Koh’s wife, Susanna Liew, had no legal right (locus standi) to sue on behalf of her disappeared husband. The court’s rejection of this argument was a powerful defense of an individual’s right to seek justice against the state.
Judge Su Tiang Joo J firmly dismissed the challenge. In a move that underscored its importance, the judge placed his declaration on this matter at the very beginning of his judgment, even before the formal introduction, establishing it as the foundational principle for the entire case:
“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.”
6. The Verdict Was Unmistakable: The State Was Responsible.
After weighing all the evidence, the court’s ultimate conclusion was direct and unambiguous. It ruled that, on a balance of probabilities, “one or more of D1 to D12, acting jointly, in combination, or otherwise, were directly or indirectly responsible for the abduction and/or enforced disappearance of P1.”
This was not a finding against a few rogue officers, but a judgment of state responsibility. The defendants were found liable for a list of serious legal wrongs, including:
- Breach of Constitutional rights
- Misfeasance in public office
- Conspiracy to injure
- Negligence
The court applied a crucial legal principle known as the “shifting of the evidential onus”. In practice, this meant that because Pastor Koh’s family presented such a strong circumstantial case pointing to the state’s involvement, the law required the defendants to provide a credible, alternative explanation for what happened. The court’s verdict was sealed not just by the family’s evidence, but by the state’s complete failure to offer any plausible counter-narrative.
Conclusion: A Verdict Is Not the Same as Justice
After years of uncertainty, denial, and misdirection, the High Court judgment provides a clear, official, and judicially-endorsed account of what happened to Pastor Raymond Koh. It assigns blame squarely on agents of the state, validating the long-held fears of his family and supporters.
But while the court has delivered a verdict, it has not yet delivered closure. The judgment assigns liability and awards damages, but Pastor Koh’s whereabouts remain unknown. His family still does not know if he is alive or dead. This landmark ruling is a crucial step toward the truth, but it is not the final one. It raises a profound question for the nation: when a court of law finds the state itself responsible for the disappearance of a citizen, what does true accountability look like, and what must happen next to ensure justice is truly served?
The Attorney General Chambers of Malaysia had since filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for your specific legal needs.
