Did you ever wonder why the High Court ordered the government to pay two different compensation amounts in the disappearances of Amri Che Mat and Pastor Raymond Koh—RM3 million for Amri’s case and over RM36 million for Koh’s case? Lawyers say the answer isn’t about race. It hinges on the distinct legal claims and evidence in each lawsuit.
During a recent forum, lawyer Surendra Ananth explained that the two lawsuits were separate actions with different plaintiffs and theories. In Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Ariffin’s case, she sued over the police’s negligent and misfeasant investigations into Amri’s disappearance (November 24, 2016) but did not sue over Amri’s abduction itself. In Koh’s case, Koh was named as a plaintiff through his wife Susanna Liew, who sued for relief on behalf of Koh. This difference in who was suing and what was claimed helped shape the final compensation orders.
The High Court’s November 5 rulings reflected these differences. Amri’s wife was awarded RM3 million for her mental anguish and for the government’s oppressive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional actions in the investigation. The court noted that she did not sue over Amri’s abduction itself because that action was not part of her claim.
Koh’s wife, by contrast, also received RM3 million for her distress. But Koh himself was pursuing a broader set of claims—liberty deprivation and related harms—through his wife as the litigation representative. The court therefore awarded a larger total for Koh: more than RM33 million, which includes RM1 million for suppressing evidence, RM1 million for oppressive and unconstitutional actions, and RM10,000 for every day Koh’s location remained unknown since his abduction on February 13, 2017. By November 5, 2025, that daily rate had accumulated to over RM31 million given the duration of his disappearance.
Legal experts note that the two higher sums in Koh’s case arise from treating Koh and Susanna as separate legal entities with different bases for damages. The judge followed established precedents, including a 2025 decision awarding RM15,000 per day for loss of liberty and earlier 2015 case law awarding RM10,000 per day, to determine the daily damages for Koh. Since the RM10,000 per day figure was not arbitrary, it helped justify the substantial amount in Koh’s favor.
Some lawyers emphasize that the court’s approach also serves to pressure authorities to disclose information about Koh’s fate. If disclosures occur, the daily penalty could end; if not, it continues to accrue. This creates a financial incentive to resolve questions surrounding Koh’s disappearance while highlighting the government’s accountability.
In parallel, both families of Amri and Koh received RM3 million each for their own distress. The legal distinction lies in Koh’s pursuit of claims directly tied to deprivation of liberty and ongoing unknown status, which justified a higher total when combined with the separate damages awarded to his wife for emotional distress.
Commentators also noted that the government’s liability extends to how evidence and investigations were handled, including alleged delays and missteps, which further shaped the court’s monetary decisions. The government has signaled it will appeal the High Court’s rulings in both cases.
Controversy may arise around whether compensation should be tied to the status of the victims’ cases or to broader questions of state responsibility. Do you think the court’s approach appropriately balances individual harms with public accountability, or should there be a more uniform framework for cases of enforced disappearance? Share your thoughts in the conversation below.
