SINGAPORE: Malaysian death-row inmate Pannir Selvam Pranthaman gained reprieve when the Singapore Court of Appeal reserved its judgment, following the second hearing on his post-appeal application held on Wednesday.
The Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) policy on the scheduling of executions came under scrutiny during the proceedings, as Pannir Selvam’s counsel and the Attorney-General’s Chambers addressed the content of affidavits they submitted after the first hearing on May 7.
At the initial hearing, the court observed that Pannir Selvam’s request for a stay of execution, pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings arising from his complaint to the Law Society, rested fundamentally on the principle that the MHA’s policy on execution scheduling must be applied equally to all.
His lawyers argued that the MHA policy applied to him differs from an earlier policy, thereby violating his right to equal treatment under Article 12 of the Constitution.
On this, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who led the five-man bench, stated that Article 12 does not prohibit a state agency from changing its policy.
“Article 12 applies by looking at the current legislation, the current statute, or the current policy, and asking yourself whether that policy is being applied in a way that is unfairly discriminatory,” he said.
Pannir Selvam’s counsel further argued that the MHA had not provided an explanation for the differing application of its policy between state and non-state proceedings.
In their submission, his counsel team argued that the MHA’s approach to preserving a prisoner’s life had changed.
Previously, executions could be delayed if a prisoner’s testimony was needed in any legal case.
Now, the MHA says delays are only considered if the testimony is needed in a state-led case.
“There have been no reasons provided by the MHA as to why this differential treatment between a state and a non-state proceeding is reasonable,” said counsel Ng Yuan Siang.
In response, Deputy Senior State Counsel Terrence Chua said the distinction exists because state-brought proceedings are, by definition, in the public interest.
“It goes beyond the interest of an individual PACP (prisoner awaiting capital punishment), whereas the PACP cannot claim to represent public interest in their private applications.
“But even then, I pointed out in my affidavit that state-brought applications are still assessed on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
The court responded by saying that if the applicant can show that the policy can give rise to an unfair distinction between two categories of persons between whom there is no rational difference, he may be entitled to a finding that the policy offends Article 12.
The proceedings, which lasted over an hour, ended with Chief Justice Menon stating that the Court would reserve its judgment.
Seated in the dock wearing a purple-coloured prison uniform, Pannir Selvam appeared calm throughout the proceedings in a packed courtroom, which was also attended by his siblings who had arrived from Malaysia earlier in the day.
The hearing marks the latest chapter in Pannir Selvam’s ongoing legal battle against his death sentence.
He was convicted by the High Court on May 2, 2017, for importing not less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore and was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
Pannir Selvam filed an appeal, but it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on Feb 9, 2018.
Together with his family and legal team, he submitted petitions for clemency to the President of Singapore, who subsequently declined to commute the sentence.
Pannir Selvam and his family were informed that he would be executed on May 24, 2019.
He then filed another application to the Court of Appeal, seeking a stay of execution on the grounds that he intended to challenge both the rejection of his clemency petition and the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to issue a Certificate of Substantial Assistance (CSA).
The court granted this application on May 23, 2019. Following this, he filed several other judicial review applications.
Pannir Selvam received another notice of execution on Feb 16, 2025, for a scheduled execution on Feb 20.
He then filed for permission to make a Post-Appeal Application in a Capital Case (PACC), seeking a stay of execution, which was granted on Feb 19.
Judge of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li, in his written judgment, stated that the stay was granted pending the determination of his PACC application.
Singapore’s PACC Act, which came into effect on June 28, 2024, allows prisoners awaiting capital punishment to make post-appeal applications, which can only be heard by the Court of Appeal.
– Bernama
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd
