Drug courier fails in bid to stay execution pending result of complaint against former lawyer

The Court of Appeal on Sept 5 dismissed a bid by a convicted drug courier to stay his execution pending the determination of his complaint to the Law Society of Singapore against his former lawyer.

A key point in the case was whether it was lawful for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to make a distinction between the types of legal proceedings it considers relevant in the scheduling of executions.

Lawyers for Pannir Selvam Pranthaman argued that his execution should be postponed because his testimony was required for the disciplinary proceedings against his former counsel.

The ministry then stated its position that in scheduling executions, it considers whether the inmate is involved in relevant pending court proceedings that may affect the person’s conviction or sentence.

MHA said proceedings that do not impact conviction or sentence, including disciplinary proceedings against counsel brought by the inmate, are not considered relevant.

The ministry added that it also considers whether the prisoner’s testimony is required in any proceedings brought by the state, such as criminal proceedings.

Pannir then challenged the lawfulness of MHA’s policy to draw a distinction between proceedings brought by the state and those not brought by the state.

On Sept 5, a five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, rejected Pannir’s arguments and ruled that the policy distinction was not unlawful.

The court noted that proceedings brought by the state seek to vindicate the public interest and not the private interests of any individual inmate.

In addition, there is no danger that such proceedings will be used by inmates as a means of “indefinitely impeding” the carrying out of their sentences.

The other judges on the panel were Justice Belinda Ang, Justice Woo Bih Li, Justice See Kee Oon and Justice Judith Prakash.

Pannir was convicted in 2017 of importing 51.84g of heroin into Singapore and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.

In 2019, his execution was stayed by the Court of Appeal on the basis that he intended to mount a legal challenge against the rejection of his petition for clemency to then President Halimah Yacob.

His attempt to start a challenge ultimately failed in 2020, and he went on to file other post-appeal applications.

On Oct 24, 2024, he lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Mr Ong Ying Ping, who had handled one of these applications.

Pannir claimed that Mr Ong had pressured and misled him into signing a notice for Pannir to act in person, and had refused to represent him just three days before the scheduled hearing.

He also claimed Mr Ong had continued to collect legal fees from his family even after having him sign the notice.

Pannir was scheduled to be executed on Feb 20, 2025.

On Feb 19, 2025, Justice Woo summarily granted him permission to make a post-appeal application

 and ordered a stay of his execution pending the determination of his application.

Under procedures that came into effect in 2024, death row inmates have to apply to a single judge for permission to make a post-appeal application.

If permission is granted, the application will be heard before a panel of three or more judges.

On March 10, 2025, Pannir, who was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, Mr Ng Yuan Siang, Mr Suang Wijaya and Mr Too Xing Ji, filed an application to stay his execution.

First, he contended that his testimony was required for the complaint against Mr Ong.

The second ground pertained to a constitutional challenge filed by four other death row inmates against provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

The Court of Appeal has since dismissed the MDA challenge, which meant this was now moot.

In its written judgment for Pannir’s application, the court stressed that death row inmates are individuals who have been sentenced in accordance with the law and whose convictions and sentences have been upheld following an appeal or review.

“The starting point in the circumstances is that the state is entitled to deprive them of their lives, subject to the qualification that this must be carried out in accordance with law,” said the court.

Against this backdrop, it was legitimate for the MHA to recognise a limited exception in relation to proceedings brought by the state without extending the same exception to non-state-brought proceedings, said the court.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Pannir Selvam Pranthaman v Attorney-General [2025] SGCA 43

ADV: <Seminar only> ​Charting New Waters: The SICC After 10 Years Justice gaps undermine stability and breed cynicism: President Tharman