Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGCA 54
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-11-26
- Judges: Tay Yong Kwang JCA
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Saminathan a/l Selvaraju
- Defendant/Respondent: Attorney-General
- Legal Areas: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Stay of execution
- Statutes Referenced: Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022, Criminal Procedure Code, G of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, Misuse of Drugs Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Cases Cited: [2018] SGHC 161, [2020] SGCA 45, [2025] SGCA 54
- Judgment Length: 21 pages, 5,324 words
Summary
This case involves an application by Saminathan a/l Selvaraju ("Mr. Saminathan"), a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, for permission to file a post-appeal application in a capital case. Mr. Saminathan was convicted for drug trafficking and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. He seeks a stay of execution and permission to file an application challenging his execution, citing an ongoing constitutional challenge to the mandatory death penalty for drug offenses.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Mr. Saminathan was tried jointly with two other individuals, Mr. Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain ("Mr. Rizwan") and Mr. Zulkarnain bin Kemat, for drug-related offenses. Mr. Zulkarnain was convicted for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and was sentenced to life imprisonment after the trial judge found him to be a courier under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) and the Public Prosecutor issued a certificate of substantive assistance. Mr. Rizwan was convicted for abetting Mr. Zulkarnain and received the mandatory death penalty, as he was not found to be a courier and did not receive a certificate of substantive assistance. Similarly, Mr. Saminathan was found to be a courier but did not receive a certificate of substantive assistance, and thus also received the mandatory death penalty.
Mr. Rizwan and Mr. Saminathan appealed their convictions, but their appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2020. Their executions are scheduled for November 27, 2025. On November 20, 2025, Mr. Saminathan was notified of the scheduled execution date.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case is whether Mr. Saminathan should be granted a stay of execution and permission to file a post-appeal application in a capital case. Mr. Saminathan argues that a stay of execution is warranted due to an ongoing constitutional challenge to the mandatory death penalty for drug offenses, which may affect his conviction and sentence.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal examined the various post-appeal applications filed by Mr. Saminathan and other inmates over the years, including applications for clemency, judicial review, and challenges to the constitutionality of certain provisions. The court noted that Mr. Saminathan had been involved in numerous unsuccessful legal challenges since his appeal was dismissed in 2020.
The court then considered the current application, which was filed under section 60G(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. This provision allows a prisoner awaiting capital punishment to seek permission to file a post-appeal application in a capital case. The court examined the requirements for granting such permission, including the need for the applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case and the existence of exceptional circumstances.
The court also considered the ongoing constitutional challenge to the mandatory death penalty for drug offenses, which was filed by the Transformative Justice Collective in a separate case (HC/OA 1213/2025). The court acknowledged that the outcome of this challenge could potentially affect Mr. Saminathan's conviction and sentence, and thus the court needed to carefully consider whether a stay of execution was warranted pending the resolution of the constitutional challenge.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal ultimately granted a stay of execution for Mr. Saminathan, pending the determination of the constitutional challenge in HC/OA 1213/2025. The court found that the ongoing constitutional challenge, which could potentially affect Mr. Saminathan's case, constituted exceptional circumstances that justified a stay of execution.
The court also granted Mr. Saminathan permission to file a post-appeal application in a capital case, allowing him to seek a prohibiting order against his execution and a quashing order for the notice of execution. This decision ensures that Mr. Saminathan's case will be further considered by the courts, taking into account the potential impact of the constitutional challenge.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding capital punishment in Singapore, particularly in the context of drug-related offenses. The court's decision to grant a stay of execution and permission for a post-appeal application demonstrates the judiciary's willingness to carefully consider the unique circumstances of each case, even in the face of mandatory sentencing provisions.
Secondly, the case underscores the importance of ongoing constitutional challenges to the mandatory death penalty. The court's recognition that the outcome of the Transformative Justice Collective's challenge could potentially affect Mr. Saminathan's case suggests that the courts are open to re-evaluating the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty, which has long been a contentious issue in Singapore.
Finally, this case serves as a reminder of the significant procedural hurdles and legal obstacles that prisoners facing capital punishment must navigate in their efforts to challenge their convictions and sentences. The court's detailed review of Mr. Saminathan's extensive history of post-appeal applications underscores the complexity and persistence required to pursue legal remedies in such cases.
Legislation Referenced
- Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022
- Criminal Procedure Code
- G of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
Cases Cited
- [2018] SGHC 161
- [2020] SGCA 45
- [2025] SGCA 54
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGCA 54 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.