SINGAPORE, Sept. 5, 2025 — A convicted drug courier’s bid to halt his execution has been definitively rejected by Singapore’s Court of Appeal. The ruling on Sept. 5 effectively dismisses his plea to delay his death sentence while he pursued a complaint against his former lawyer with the Law Society of Singapore.
Court Upholds Ministry Policy on Execution Scheduling
Table of Contents
The decision hinges on whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) can legally prioritize certain legal proceedings when scheduling executions.
- Singapore’s Court of Appeal dismissed a drug courier’s bid to delay his execution.
- The ruling upholds the Ministry of Home Affairs’ policy on prioritizing legal proceedings for execution scheduling.
- The court found no illegality in distinguishing between state-led and inmate-initiated proceedings.
- The courier, Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, was convicted of importing heroin in 2017.
The core of the case revolved around Pannir Selvam Pranthaman’s argument that his execution should be postponed because his testimony was crucial for disciplinary proceedings against his ex-counsel. However, the MHA maintained its stance: only pending court proceedings that could impact an inmate’s conviction or sentence are relevant for scheduling executions. Disciplinary actions against lawyers, the ministry stated, do not fall into this category.
Challenging the Ministry’s Distinction
Pannir’s legal team challenged the lawfulness of this MHA policy, arguing it unfairly distinguished between proceedings initiated by the state and those not brought by the state. A five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, ultimately found no grounds to deem this distinction unlawful.
What is the primary legal question addressed in the court’s decision? The court addressed whether the Ministry of Home Affairs’ policy of differentiating between types of legal proceedings for scheduling executions was lawful.
The court’s written judgment emphasized that state-initiated proceedings serve the public interest, unlike individual inmate concerns. Furthermore, the judges noted that such state-led actions pose no risk of being exploited by inmates to indefinitely delay their sentences. The other judges on the panel were Justice Belinda Ang, Justice Woo Bih Li, Justice See Kee Oon, and Justice Judith Prakash.
The Court of Appeal’s decision on Sept. 5 solidified the MHA’s right to prioritize state-led legal matters over inmate-led complaints when scheduling executions.
A Long Legal Battle
Pannir was convicted in 2017 for importing 51.84 grams of heroin into Singapore, which carried a mandatory death penalty. His execution was previously stayed in 2019 by the Court of Appeal to allow him to pursue a legal challenge against the rejection of his clemency petition. That challenge failed in 2020.
More recently, on Oct. 24, 2024, Pannir lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Mr. Ong Ying Ping, alleging he was pressured and misled into signing a notice to represent himself and that Mr. Ong refused further representation just days before a scheduled hearing. Pannir also claimed legal fees were collected by Mr. Ong even after this notice was signed.
His execution was originally scheduled for Feb. 20, 2025. However, on Feb. 19, 2025, Justice Woo granted him permission to file a post-appeal application, temporarily halting the execution. This followed new procedures enacted in 2024, requiring death row inmates to first obtain a single judge’s permission for such applications.
On March 10, 2025, Pannir, represented by a new legal team, filed an application to stay his execution. His arguments centered on the necessity of his testimony for the complaint against Mr. Ong and a constitutional challenge against provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) filed by four other inmates. The MDA challenge has since been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, rendering that part of Pannir’s application moot.
The court’s judgment underscored that individuals on death row have been sentenced lawfully, with their convictions and sentences upheld on appeal. “The starting point in the circumstances is that 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 stated.
This backdrop made it legitimate, the court concluded, for the MHA to recognize a limited exception for state-brought proceedings without extending it to proceedings initiated by inmates.
