The Singapore Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in a high-profile case involving Malaysian death-row inmate Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, following a second hearing on his post-appeal application held on 6 August 2025.
The court’s decision to reserve judgment prolongs Pannir Selvam’s reprieve from execution, while legal questions are weighed surrounding the equal application of execution scheduling policies under Singapore’s Constitution.
At the core of the case is whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has applied its policy on the scheduling of executions in a way that discriminates against certain prisoners, thus breaching Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
Pannir Selvam’s lawyers argued that the MHA applied a different version of its execution scheduling policy to his case than it did in earlier cases, without justification.
According to the legal team, under the previous policy, an inmate’s execution could be delayed if their testimony was required in any legal case—whether state-initiated or not.
However, the current MHA stance is that delays will only be considered for state-led proceedings.
Counsel Ng Yuan Siang stated during the hearing that the MHA has not explained why private legal proceedings, such as those initiated by prisoners or third parties, are excluded from the same delay considerations.
“There have been no reasons provided by the MHA as to why this differential treatment between a state and a non-state proceeding is reasonable,” Ng told the court.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, leading the five-member bench, commented that while Article 12 guarantees equal treatment, it does not prevent a government agency from changing its policies.
“Article 12 applies by looking at the current legislation, the current statute, or the current policy, and asking yourself whether that policy is being applied in a way that is unfairly discriminatory,” said the Chief Justice.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), represented by Deputy Senior State Counsel Terrence Chua, argued that the distinction is valid, as proceedings initiated by the state inherently serve the public interest.
Chua added that even state-brought applications are reviewed individually, implying that public interest assessments are not automatic.
In response, the court acknowledged that if it could be shown that the policy produces an unfair distinction between two groups without a rational basis, the policy could be ruled unconstitutional.
Another issue for the Court’s consideration is whether public interest is engaged in Law Society complaints. Justice Judith Prakash raised this during the hearing, noting that disciplining errant solicitors serves the public interest regardless of who lodges the complaint.
While AGC initially appeared to draw a distinction between State-led and prisoner-initiated proceedings for the purpose of scheduling executions, after further questioning, AGC’s counsel seemed to acknowledge the public interest dimension in Law Society proceedings
The proceedings lasted over an hour, with Pannir Selvam seated in the dock wearing a purple prison uniform and appearing calm. His siblings attended the packed courtroom, having travelled from Malaysia earlier that day.
The hearing represents the latest in a long series of legal efforts by Pannir Selvam and his legal team to halt his execution, originally scheduled in 2019.
Pannir Selvam was convicted on 2 May 2017 for importing no less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
He appealed his conviction, but the Court of Appeal dismissed his challenge on 9 February 2018.
A clemency petition submitted to the President of Singapore was later denied.
In 2019, upon receiving an execution notice, Pannir Selvam filed a last-minute appeal, which the court accepted on 23 May 2019, just one day before his scheduled execution.
Since then, he has filed multiple judicial review applications, continuing to contest both the rejection of his clemency plea and the Public Prosecutor’s refusal to issue a Certificate of Substantial Assistance (CSA).
The most recent execution notice was received on 16 February 2025, with the execution set for 20 February. However, he successfully applied for a stay of execution on 19 February.
Judge of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li, in a written decision, confirmed that the stay was granted pending the outcome of Pannir Selvam’s Post-Appeal Application in a Capital Case (PACC).
The legal framework allowing such applications was introduced through the PACC Act, which came into force on 28 June 2024.
This Act grants prisoners awaiting capital punishment the right to make post-appeal applications, which are to be heard only by the Court of Appeal.
As the judgment remains pending, Pannir Selvam continues to await the court’s ruling that could have wider implications for how execution scheduling policies are interpreted and applied in Singapore.
The post Singapore Court reserves judgment in Malaysian death-row inmate’s post-appeal bid appeared first on The Online Citizen.
