The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has denied all allegations of impropriety or discrimination when it comes to scheduling judicial executions, essentially saying that Singaporeans are not executed ahead of foreigners.

In a statement released on Sep. 22, MHA said:

"All prisoners sentenced to capital punishment are accorded due process according to the law. A judicial execution will only be scheduled after an inmate has exhausted all legal channels for appeal and clemency, regardless of whether the prisoner is a Singaporean or a foreigner."

Syed Suhail Syed Zin, a convicted drug trafficker, was scheduled for execution, but it was delayed on Sep. 18 while his lawyer M. Ravi filed an appeal.

No discrimination in carrying out sentences

On Sep. 22, The Straits Times reported that M. Ravi argued before the Court of Appeal that death row inmates are allegedly not being treated equally.

He noted that convicts sentenced to death were not being executed in the order they were sentenced.

M. Ravi contended that the executions of foreign convicts were being "pushed back" due to Covid-19 travel restrictions, as they would have no access to visits from relatives overseas, and there could be issues around repatriating their remains.

He said that this was a breach of Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

However, Senior State Counsel Francis Ng, acting for the Attorney-General, argued that sentences do not have to be carried out in the order they were imposed.

The court asked for further submissions on the issue, and all parties will return on a date to be set after Oct. 6, 2020.

In the same statement, MHA said the allegations were "completely baseless" and will be comprehensively addressed in a response to be filed before the next hearing date.

Clarification on Suhail's letter

MHA also clarified the circumstances surrounding the letter sent by Suhail to his then-counsel, which was subsequently extended by the Singapore Prison Service to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

On May 3, 2018, during a hearing before the Court of Appeal, Suhail told the court he wanted to introduce evidence from his uncle for his appeal, although he gave the court "various reasons" during the trial not to call his uncle as a defence witness.

The hearing was adjourned for the parties to look into the request, and the Court of Appeal allowed the AGC to file a response if it thought that Syed Suhail was abusing the process of the court.

MHA said:

"In the preparation of its response, AGC approached SPS to check whether Syed Suhail had expressed any prior intention to call his uncle as a witness. SPS’s checks revealed that Syed Suhail had informed the Superintendent of his intention to call his uncle as a defence witness.

He had also written four letters to his uncle. In this context, SPS extended a copy of these letters, and one letter to his then-counsel (i.e. the Letter) to the AGC on 10 May 2018 and 7 June 2018. At that time, there was no legal prohibition in the Prisons Act or Regulations against doing so."

ST also reported that during the Sep. 22 hearing before the Court of Appeal, M. Ravi referred to a letter from Suhail to his former lawyer that the Prisons copied to the AGC.

M. Ravi argued that this was a breach of solicitor-client privilege, which rendered the prosecutorial process invalid.

According to CNA, he wanted the entire AGC team to be disqualified as it had read "privileged communications" from Suhail to his uncle and his former lawyer.

MHA added that M. Ravi was invited by the Court to explain how prejudice was caused by extending the letter to the AGC, but he was unable to do so.

Related story:

Top image from M Ravi's Facebook page.