Omar Bin Yacob Bamadhaj v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, filed Criminal Motion No 10 of 2026 on 9 April 2026 under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, seeking permission to make a review application to reopen his concluded appeal, CA/CCA 9/2021. His execution was scheduled for 16 April 2026.

He was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint on 12 July 2018 when three bundles containing not less than 1009.1g of cannabis were found in his haversack in the boot of his father's car. After trial in HC/CC 46/2019, the High Court convicted him on 24 February 2021 of importation under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It found he was a courier, but he had no certificate of substantive assistance, so he was sentenced to death. At trial he denied making an oral admission to an immigration officer, Sgt Faliq, and said the officer had threatened to slap him, which he claimed CCTV footage would show. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 12 October 2021, and his clemency petition was rejected.

In this motion he alleged that his trial counsel ignored his instructions to obtain the CCTV footage, that the investigation officer and the prosecutor suppressed it, and that his appeal counsel did not properly argue the appeal. He also claimed he had been intoxicated when making the oral statement.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's material was evidence or legal argument for the purposes of s 394J of the CPC
2. Whether the allegations about the CCTV footage, his trial counsel and the prosecution were sufficient and compelling material showing a miscarriage of justice
3. Whether the complaints about his appeal counsel showed a miscarriage of justice

Holding

A single Judge of the Court of Appeal refused, and so dismissed, the application for permission to make a review application, summarily under s 394H(7) of the CPC and without setting it down for a hearing.

Reasoning

The court held that although the applicant called his material a new legal argument, it was entirely factual and so evidential, and no change in the law had been identified. To be sufficient, material must not have been canvassed before, must not have been obtainable earlier with reasonable diligence, and must be compelling.

The CCTV issue and the alleged threat had been fully canvassed at trial and on appeal. The trial Judge accepted the investigation officer's evidence that the footage, which she had viewed and found unremarkable, had been overwritten by the time of trial, and that she would have retrieved it had he complained during her dealings with him. The conviction also rested on other admissions, incriminating text messages and his knowledge of the bundles' number and contents. The allegations of suppression and of trial counsel's failings were new, raised more than four years after the appeal without explanation, and were bare, speculative and contradicted by the record, since trial counsel had cross-examined both officers. The intoxication claim had never been raised about that statement, could have been raised earlier and was likely an afterthought.

As for the appeal, court records showed the hearing ran from 2.30pm to 3.04pm, that appeal counsel addressed the court, and that full written submissions had been filed and considered. Nothing suggested a failure of justice.

From the judgment