Singapore Court Acquits Women accused of Protesting in Support of Palestine Due to Lack of Clear Signage
A Singaporean district court on Tuesday,October 21st,acquitted three women – Mossammad Sobikun Nahar,26,Siti amirah Mohamed Asrori,30,and Annamalai kokila Parvathi,37 – who were accused of organizing a procession to publicize solidarity with Palestine. the acquittal hinged on the court’s finding that the women had no reasonable way of knowing the route they took was prohibited under the Public Order Act.
The courtroom was filled with supporters who reacted with jubilation to the verdict, cheering and applauding as the women were declared not guilty. The case centered around a walk to deliver letters to the Istana, the official residence of the President of Singapore, in November 2023.
The trial, the prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun, emphasized that the women were not being charged with supporting the cause itself, nor for the act of writing or delivering the letters. The core issue was whether they knowingly violated regulations regarding public processions.
District Judge John Ng meticulously outlined the legal framework, stating the prosecution bore the duty of proving both the actus reas – the guilty act – and the mens rea – a guilty state of mind.while the judge acknowledged the prosecution successfully demonstrated the women organized the procession, with Ms. Annamalai assisting, he found the prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of intent.
Specifically, Judge ng determined the prosecution did not demonstrate the women “ought reasonably to have known” they were proceeding in a prohibited area. This determination was based on the fact that the area surrounding the Istana lacked any visible signage indicating a prohibition on public passage. The judge noted that the location was a regularly used public pathway.
“there had been several similar walks to deliver letters to the rear gate of the Istana,” Judge Ng stated, highlighting a pattern of previous activity that would lead a reasonable person to believe the route was permissible.He further observed that the women were demonstrably attempting to comply with the law,even if their actions inadvertently constituted a procession.
The prosecution’s case was intricate by the women’s use of umbrellas adorned with watermelon designs, a symbol widely associated with Palestinian solidarity. Judge Ng acknowledged this detail, stating it was “disingenuous” for the women to claim their actions were solely focused on letter delivery and not a public expression of support. He clarified that while delivering letters was part of their purpose, it was not the sole intention. He described the humanitarian crisis in Palestine as “the sad backdrop to this case.”
Despite acknowledging Ms. Sobikun’s admission that the walk was conceived as a way to “get a response” from the Prime Minister, the judge found the defense’s attempts to downplay this admission as a “plain exercise in delivery” unconvincing and “disappointing.” He asserted that denying the intent to publicize the cause would be “trying to pull wool over everyone’s eyes.”
Judge Ng posed a rhetorical question to underscore his point: “Was the use of umbrellas because they looked cute and attractive and because they could be used in case of rain?” While acknowledging the umbrellas could serve a practical purpose, he reiterated their undeniable connection to the Palestinian cause.
Ultimately, the judge concluded the prosecution failed to establish that the women had any reasonable understanding that their chosen route was illegal or prohibited. He found they held “an honest and reasonable belief” that they were acting within the bounds of the law.
Following the acquittal, Ms.Amirah expressed her “gratitude” for the “unexpected” outcome. Ms. Sobikun thanked the community for their unwavering support, while Ms. Annamalai characterized the victory as “incomplete,” emphasizing “a long road ahead to win our civil liberties as well as Palestine’s freedom.”
Had they been convicted,the women faced a potential sentence of up to six months in jail,a fine of up to S$10,000,or both. The Attorney-General’s Chambers has been contacted for comment regarding a potential appeal of the verdict.
