Omar Bin Yacob Bamadhaj v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Outcome
Application refusedI therefore refuse the application summarily pursuant to s 394H(7) of the CPC without setting it down for a hearing.
Source: [2026] SGCA 18, Court of Appeal, decided 15 April 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Application refused |
Source: [2026] SGCA 18, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 18 is a Court of Appeal judgment in which See Kee Oon JAD, sitting as a single judge, summarily refused an application filed on 9 April 2026 by a prisoner awaiting capital punishment to seek permission to reopen his earlier Court of Appeal conviction in CA/CCA 9/2021. Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj had been convicted on 24 February 2021 of a charge under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act following a trial and was sentenced to capital punishment; his execution was scheduled for 16 April 2026. See Kee Oon JAD refused permission under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 without setting the application down for a hearing, delivering the judgment on 15 April 2026.
[2026] SGCA 18 explained
Omar Bin Yacob Bamadhaj v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 18) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 15 April 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. 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 18 about?
Omar Bin Yacob Bamadhaj v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 18) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Review” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Stay of execution”, 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 18 consider?
The judgment refers to Applications in Capital Cases Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 18 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 5. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj, a prisoner sentenced to death for importing not less than 1009.1g of cannabis under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, applied under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 for permission to reopen his appeal, with his execution scheduled for 16 April 2026. The single Judge summarily refused the application under s 394H(7), finding no sufficient basis to grant permission for a review, and declined to stay the execution.
What happened in Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj's last-minute application to the Court of Appeal before his execution ([2026] SGCA 18)?
On 13 April 2026, Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj — convicted under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and scheduled for execution on 16 April 2026 — applied under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code to reopen his appeal. See Kee Oon JAD summarily refused the application on 15 April 2026 without a hearing.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 18)