Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 15 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGCA 15 Court of Appeal 24 March 2026 CA/CCA 7/2023 · CA/CM 11/2025 26 min read

9 cases cited (7 SG, 2 foreign)

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	24 March 2026
Judges	Judith Prakash, Steven Chong, Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Abuse of process
Counsel	Andre Jumabhoy LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers (Criminal Justice Division), Andre Darius Jumabhoy, Aristotle Eng, Benedict Chan Wei Qi, Claire Poh

Source: [2026] SGCA 15, Court of Appeal, decided 24 March 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence Abuse of process — Collateral purpose — Appellant seeking retrial under guise of application to adduce fresh evidence Abuse of process — Inconsistent positions — Appellant seeking to adduce fresh evidence that he elected not to adduce at trial

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Abuse of process

Judges (3)

Judith Prakash Coram Steven Chong Delivered Tay Yong Kwang Coram

Counsel (6)

Andre Jumabhoy LLC Firm Attorney-General's Chambers (Criminal Justice Division) Firm Andre Darius Jumabhoy Counsel Appellant Aristotle Eng Counsel Appellant Benedict Chan Wei Qi Counsel Respondent Claire Poh Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir Appellant

Case Significance

In Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 15, the Court of Appeal on 24 March 2026 dismissed both the appellant's criminal appeal against conviction (CCA 7/2023) and his motion to adduce fresh evidence (CM 11/2025). Mustaqim had been convicted of a capital charge of trafficking not less than 56.8g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. His central trial defence was that 42.62g of the diamorphine formed two bundles he had mistakenly received from a contact named 'Zack' and intended to return. The Court, comprising Tay Yong Kwang JCA, Steven Chong JCA (delivering the grounds), and Judith Prakash SJ, found that Mustaqim's application to adduce fresh evidence constituted an abuse of process on two grounds: he sought a retrial under the guise of adducing fresh evidence, and he attempted to adduce evidence he had elected not to use at trial. Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Eng of Andre Jumabhoy LLC represented the appellant, with Benedict Chan Wei Qi and Claire Poh of the Attorney-General's Chambers (Criminal Justice Division) for the respondent.

[2026] SGCA 15 explained

Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 15) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 24 March 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, and Abuse of process. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGCA 15 about?

Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 15) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence”, “Abuse of process — Collateral purpose — Appellant seeking retrial under guise of application to adduce fresh evidence”, and “Abuse of process — Inconsistent positions — Appellant seeking to adduce fresh evidence that he elected not to adduce at trial”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 15 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 15 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGCA 9. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir's application to adduce fresh evidence in [2026] SGCA 15?

The Court of Appeal held that Mustaqim's CM 11/2025 application was an abuse of process on two bases: he was seeking a retrial disguised as a fresh-evidence application, and he sought to rely on evidence he had deliberately chosen not to adduce at his capital drug-trafficking trial in Criminal Case 44 of 2022.

What was Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir convicted of in the case decided by the Court of Appeal in March 2026 ([2026] SGCA 15)?

Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir was convicted of a capital charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking not less than 56.8g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, punishable under s 33(1), with the Court of Appeal upholding conviction on 24 March 2026.