Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General

Facts

Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman was convicted by the High Court on 2 May 2017 of importing not less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore on 3 September 2014. The court found he was a courier, but because the Public Prosecutor did not issue him a certificate of substantive assistance under s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, he was sentenced to death. His appeals were dismissed on 9 February 2018, his challenge to the refusal of a certificate failed in Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General [2022] 2 SLR 421, and a later post-appeal application was dismissed on 5 September 2025. His execution was scheduled for 8 October 2025.

According to his counsel's affidavits, three officers of the Royal Malaysia Police interviewed him at Changi Prison on 27 September 2025 and told him that his former handler and an associate had been arrested in Malaysia because of his case. He said the information he had given the Central Narcotics Bureau between 2014 and 2019 had apparently led to or helped those arrests. On 6 October 2025 he filed Originating Application (OAC) No 2 of 2025, which a single judge of the Court of Appeal treated as an application under s 60G of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act for permission to seek a stay of execution while he applied afresh for a certificate.

Issues

1. Whether the intended application for a stay had a reasonable prospect of success under s 60G(7)(d) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
2. Whether assistance said to have been given to the Malaysian police could qualify for a certificate under s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
3. Whether possible criminal proceedings in Malaysia justified a stay under the court's inherent power

Holding

The court dismissed the application summarily without an oral hearing under s 60G(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, finding no basis to order a stay of execution.

Reasoning

Only the reasonable prospect of success requirement was in dispute. The applicant had given no new information to the Bureau since 20 February 2019, and an affidavit from a Bureau deputy director said everything he told the Malaysian officers had been given to the Bureau before. The court found it speculative to say the arrests resulted from his information: being arrested because of his case might only mean the men were suspected of involvement in the 2014 offence, and it was unclear whether his information had helped the Malaysian police at all. The court also noted that he and his counsel had known since around March 2021 of contact between the Bureau and the Malaysian police.

In any event, s 33B(2)(b) requires substantive assistance to the Central Narcotics Bureau, not a foreign agency. That reading matched the provision's purpose of improving the Bureau's operational effectiveness, and the Public Prosecutor could not sensibly be required to weigh help given to authorities abroad. The court left open whether information given after an appeal is dismissed can count.

The Ministry of Home Affairs policy on considering whether a prisoner's testimony is needed refers to domestic proceedings brought by the State, so Malaysian prosecutions fell outside it. The inherent power to stay an execution in exceptional circumstances has a high threshold, and the public interest it refers to is Singapore's. Nothing about the case was exceptional.

From the judgment