SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeal here on Friday (Sept 5) dismissed Malaysian death-row inmate Pannir Selvam Pranthaman’s bid for a stay of execution, pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings arising from his complaint to the Law Society against his former lawyer.
At the initial hearing of his post-appeal application, the court noted that the request for a stay of execution pending those proceedings rested fundamentally on the principle that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ policy on execution scheduling must be applied equally to all.
The five-judge court, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, stated in its judgment on Friday that the court had considered whether the MHA had unlawfully changed its policy and, in any case, whether the MHA’s policy distinction between State-brought and non-State-brought proceedings was unlawful.
The court stated that the State is entitled to change its policies unless the change can be shown to be unlawful on some specified legal ground.
"Thus, in the present case, it remains incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate the unlawfulness of the MHA’s alleged policy change. In our judgment, he has not succeeded in doing this,” the judgment read.
In addition, the court said that even if the MHA had changed its policy on the scheduling of executions, the applicant had failed to identify any basis on which to impugn the lawfulness of that change.
Meanwhile, the court also rejected Pannir Selvam’s submission that the MHA’s policy distinction results in the differential treatment of prisoners awaiting capital punishment (PACPs) according to whether their testimony is required in State-brought or non-State-brought proceedings.
"In the first place, we stress that PACPs are persons who have been sentenced to death in accordance with law and whose convictions and sentences have been upheld by the Court of Appeal following an appeal or review,” the judgment read.
The court concluded that the MHA’s policy distinction between State-brought and non-State-brought proceedings is not unlawful, neither for violating Article 12(1) of the Constitution, nor for being irrational or unreasonable.
The court also noted that the second grounds of Pannir Selvam’s post-appeal application in a capital case (PACC application) pending proceedings brought by four other inmates are now moot as the court has dismissed the case.
Pannir Selvam 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.
His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on Feb 9, 2018, and his clemency petition to the President of Singapore was rejected.
Pannir Selvam was granted a stay of execution twice. The first was in May 2019, on the basis that he intended to challenge the rejection of his clemency petition and the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to issue a certificate of substantive assistance to him.
The second stay of execution was granted in February 2025, pending the determination of this PACC application. - Bernama
