The Court of Appeal on 5 September 2025 dismissed a final application by Malaysian national Pannir Selvam Pranthaman to stay his execution, ruling that the pending disciplinary complaint against his former counsel was not a legally relevant basis to halt capital punishment.
The five-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, found that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had acted within the law in excluding proceedings that do not affect conviction or sentence—such as disciplinary complaints—from its consideration when scheduling executions.
“The State is entitled to deprive them of their lives, subject to the qualification that this must be carried out in accordance with law,” the court ruled in its judgment.
It found no legal basis to stay the execution pending the outcome of the Law Society complaint. The court concluded that while the Law Society may still proceed with its investigations, it was under no obligation to delay Pannir’s execution to accommodate such proceedings.
Legal basis of the stay application
Represented by Eugene Thuraisingam LLP and Too Xing Ji LLC, Pannir had argued for a stay on two main grounds:
- His testimony was essential in the disciplinary complaint against lawyer Ong Ying Ping.
- He was involved in a constitutional challenge to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) brought by other death row inmates.
The Court quickly ruled the second ground moot, as the MDA challenge had already been dismissed in Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General [2025] SGCA 40.
It then focused on the primary issue: whether the ongoing disciplinary complaint against Ong should delay Pannir’s execution.
Pannir acknowledged that the complaint had no bearing on his conviction or sentence but maintained that his testimony was necessary and that a stay was therefore justified.
MHA policy and court interpretation
Central to the case was the interpretation of MHA’s policy on execution scheduling.
In a clarifying affidavit filed by Senior Director Sanjay Nanwani on 10 June 2025, the MHA stated that only proceedings that may impact the prisoner’s conviction or sentence, or require their testimony in State-brought proceedings, are relevant when scheduling executions.
The court found this policy both rational and lawful.
It stated: “The first and fundamental distinction is that State-brought proceedings seek to vindicate the public interest… In contrast, there is no limit to the number of proceedings which may be brought by a PACP (prisoner awaiting capital punishment)”.
Therefore, the MHA was justified in distinguishing between State-initiated and inmate-initiated proceedings, even if both required the prisoner’s testimony.
Conclusion of verdict
In its written grounds, the Court reaffirmed that the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 governs the procedure for such applications but does not create new substantive rights.
It also rejected arguments based on Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law. The Court clarified that policy changes over time do not amount to unconstitutional differential treatment.
The Court concluded: “There is no basis for us to stay the applicant’s execution pending the determination of the Complaint”.
The application was dismissed in full.
Extended legal and case history
Pannir was convicted on 2 May 2017 of importing 51.84g of heroin and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal in 2018.
In 2019, his execution was postponed to allow him to challenge the rejection of his clemency petition. That challenge ultimately failed in 2020, and further post-appeal applications followed.
Among these was a 2022 civil suit (OS 188/2022), in which Pannir and 12 others sued the State over unlawful disclosures of prisoner correspondence to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
That case—known as the “Prison Correspondence Case”—led to nominal damages for a few plaintiffs, but did not succeed in overturning any convictions.
In 2023, Pannir sought criminal review based on the same disclosures. That motion (CM 32/2023) was dismissed in 2024.
Following the failed application, Pannir filed a formal complaint against Ong Ying Ping on 26 October 2024, alleging misconduct in Ong’s handling of CM 32/2023.
Allegations against former counsel and Law Society’s handling
Pannir’s family filed the complaint citing several grievances:
- Ong allegedly pressured Pannir to sign a ‘Notice to Act in Person’ just days before a critical hearing.
- The family was not informed and continued paying legal fees even after Ong stepped back from the case.
- They claim Ong misrepresented the circumstances of his withdrawal to the court and collected fees totalling S$7,000 between late 2023 and July 2024.
They further allege that the Law Society failed to take timely action despite Pannir’s execution date being fixed for 20 February 2025.
On 13 January 2025, the Law Society’s Council referred the complaint to its Inquiry Committee. A two-person Review Committee was formed, but no further action was publicly confirmed.
The post Court of Appeal rejects bid to stay execution of drug courier over disciplinary complaint appeared first on The Online Citizen.
