MHA says failed constitutional challenges to S'pore drug laws likely 'last minute' attempts to prevent capital punishment 'imposed on them'

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has commented on the outcome of a failed constitutional challenge against provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), which was brought by four convicted drug traffickers on death row but recently dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The challenge took aim at provisions in Singapore's drug laws that place the onus on an accused drug trafficker to rebut certain presumed facts, and instead contended that the provisions violate parts of the constitution which guarantee the "presumption of innocence".

On Sep. 9, MHA noted that, as pointed out by the court, this is not the first time a constitutional challenge has been brought against the MDA presumptions, and each of these challenges has been unsuccessful.

Commenting on the constitutional challenge, MHA said,

"Several challenges have been mounted by persons awaiting capital punishment often at the last minute. The aim often appears to be to prevent the carrying out of the capital sentence that had been imposed on them."

Why the challenge was thrown out

The challenge was brought by four inmates — Jumaat Mohamed Sayed, Lingkesvaran Rajendran, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and Saminathan Selvaraju — who were sentenced to death between 2015 and 2018.

The inmates' most recent application to reinstate their legal challenge was dismissed by a five-judge Court of Appeal panel, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, on Aug. 28.

The panel also comprised Justice Belinda Ang, Justice Woo Bih Li, Justice See Kee Oon and Justice Judith Prakash.

Under these provisions, it is presumed that a person had drugs in their possession or knew the nature of these drugs as long as basic facts are established.

The presumptions are rebuttable, but the burden is on the accused person to disprove those presumed facts.

In a statement on Sep. 9, MHA noted that the court of appeal found that the application was without merits and affirmed the constitutionality of the MDA presumptions.

MHA noted that, as pointed out by the panel, the MDA presumptions are an essential part of the Singapore government’s toolkit against drug trafficking.

These enable the prosecutors to overcome the evidential difficulty in proving the state of mind of the accused person, "which is often exclusively within his knowledge", the panel said.

The panel also ruled that the MDA presumptions are “constitutionally permissible” and are consistent with the fundamental rules of natural justice, MHA said.

In particular, the panel found that the MDA presumptions do not offend Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, on the right to life and personal liberty, and equal protection, respectively — which was the subject of the constitutional challenge.

Once a primary fact has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a logically probative fact will be presumed, the panel noted.

The presumption is rebuttable and may be disproved by an accused person proving the contrary, on a balance of probabilities, the panel said.

Background

The MDA presumptions date back to the enactment of the laws in 1973.

According to Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam, the government views the presumptions as "an essential part of the legal framework that enables us to deal effectively with the drug problem".

The four inmates filed a challenge against the presumptions in August 2022, after their appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed in the years prior.

However, their challenge was dismissed by the High Court in November 2022.

They filed an appeal, but it was deemed to have been withdrawn due to their failure to file the necessary documents within the specified deadline.

In June 2023, they filed an application to reinstate the appeal.

In January 2025, the Court of Appeal asked the parties to go beyond the purely procedural questions and address the "underlying substantive issues".

In their judgment on Aug. 28, the panel dismissed the application to restore the appeal in its entirety.

"Given our finding that there is no merit in the substantive arguments that the applicants hope to pursue in (the appeal), there is no cause to revive (the appeal)", the panel wrote.

Top image from Wikipedia