Indian-origin OPP leader from Singapore wants trial against HC over alleged lies
According to a report by Channel News Asia, he filed a request on Monday to have the case heard at the Supreme Court (Image: shutter stock)
Indian-origin opposition party leader Pritam Singh has filed a petition seeking a hearing of his case in the Supreme Court instead of the state courts.
Singh, 48, is accused of two counts of lying to a parliamentary committee that met in November 2021 to investigate the lying controversy surrounding his party’s former MP Raeesah Khan.
Khan has resigned from parliament.
According to a report by Channel News Asia, he filed a request on Monday to have the case heard at the Supreme Court.
Singh’s lawyers, Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, relied on the case of former transport minister S. Iswaran, which has been rescheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court next month.
Referring to the Iswaran case, the lawyers said in their submissions that there was also a “strong public interest” in Singh’s case being heard by the Supreme Court.
According to Jumabhoy, who was quoted by the channel, this is the first prosecution of its kind.
“This case goes to the very essence of our democracy and this is not my characterisation,” the lawyer said, referring to a speech made by the Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah, in February 2022 to refer Singh’s case to the prosecutor.
She said: “At its core, the motions are about protecting the essence of democracy, our democracy, and preserving its most vital and essential characteristic, which is trust. They are about the need to safeguard the integrity of our institutions and Parliament in particular, and the trust that Singaporeans can have in their elected representatives.”
Jumabhoy said the minister’s “eloquent summary” sets out exactly what is at stake, and that in such circumstances it seems “almost rude” to say that Singh’s case does not warrant transfer to the Supreme Court.
The attorney said he was not denigrating the state courts or trying to insult the capabilities of the state courts by giving reasons why the Supreme Court is better suited to hear the case.
Otherwise, any application would constitute a form of derogatory conduct and make the application “completely redundant,” Jumabhoy said.
He said the prosecution appeared to be taking the position that Singh’s request was itself “offensive”, was spoken of as “outrageous” and the defence questioned the integrity and independence of the State Court judges.
“It is not just the means employed against what I would call a simple application, but also the tone of the (prosecutor’s) conclusions that are disturbing,” Jumabhoy said.
Judge Hoo Sheau Peng, who heard the motion, said there appears to be an implication that the state courts and their judges are “not well placed to deal with this matter” because of the nature of the case.
Jumabhoy said whoever the trial judge is, he will be dealing with important people in the Singapore context and this is very different from the usual, run-of-the-mill cases that come before the court.
He said the defense did not intend to make any implication against the state court judges.
“I think if we wanted to make that point we would have said it,” he said.
The prosecution, which Jumabhoy described as “a star-studded team”, consisted of a four-person team led by Deputy Attorney General and Chief Advocate Ang Cheng Hock.
Ang pointed out that Iswaran’s case was referred to the Supreme Court under a different article.
Singh filed his petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the High Court may order the transfer on three grounds: that a fair and impartial trial is not possible in a state court, that a question of law of extraordinary difficulty is likely to arise, or that it is in the interests of justice or is required under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law to transfer the case.
Ang explained that Singh’s lawyers had written a letter to the Public Prosecution Service requesting it to use its powers and transfer the case to the High Court.
The Public Prosecution Service responded that they were “unable to comply with this request” and that they did not agree to it.
Singh and his lawyers should have filed a request for a judicial inquiry into the prosecution’s decision at that time, but instead they filed a criminal request under Article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ang said.
“There is nothing to be gained legally, at least not if the applicant relies on Iswaran’s case and refers to it,” Ang said.
“Instead … there are all kinds of attempts to refer to the Iswaran case as if it is an existing case, the facts are similar, there is the same level of public interest, etc. And we say that this is actually an attempt to test the discretion of the prosecutor through the back door,” Ang said.
First publication: Aug 26, 2024 | 2:43 PM IST