PAULUS TANNOS v Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore
Outcome
Application dismissed“For the above reasons, OA 961 is dismissed.”
Source: [2026] SGHC 118, High Court (General Division), decided 29 May 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 25–31 May 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Aidan Xu |
| Charges / claim | Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC, Emily Zhao, Faraaz Amzar Mohamed Farook, Hamza Zafar Malik, Kenneth Chua Han Yuan, Sarah Siaw Ming Hui, Sivakumar Ramasamy, Suang Wijaya, Vincent Leow |
Source: [2026] SGHC 118, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (10)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Paulus Tannos v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 118 is a decision of the High Court General Division delivered by Aidan Xu J on 29 May 2026, arising from an application for leave to commence judicial review. The applicant, Paulus Tannos (also known as Tjhin Thian Po), sought to challenge the Minister for Law's decision to issue a notice under s 11(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1968, on the basis that the Republic of Indonesia's extradition request was defective under the terms of the Singapore–Indonesia Extradition Treaty. Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) sought his extradition to face trial for an alleged role in a corruption scheme relating to the e-KTP (Electronic National Identity Card) project. The applicant was represented by Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC (Suang Wijaya, Faraaz Amzar Mohamed Farook, Hamza Zafar Malik); the Attorney-General's Chambers (Vincent Leow, Sivakumar Ramasamy, Sarah Siaw Ming Hui, Kenneth Chua Han Yuan, Emily Zhao) appeared for the respondent. The judgment cites 19 authorities (11 Singapore, 8 foreign) and engages five statutes including the Extradition Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
Summary
Paulus Tannos, wanted by Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission for alleged bribery in the e-KTP national identity card procurement project, applied for judicial review of the Singapore Minister for Law's decision to issue a notice under s 11(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1968, and also sought an order for review of his detention. The central issue was whether the Indonesian extradition request was defective under the terms of the Singapore-Indonesia Extradition Treaty. The High Court dismissed both applications, finding no prima facie case that the extradition request was invalid.
What was decided in Paulus Tannos v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 118?
On 29 May 2026, Aidan Xu J of the High Court General Division dealt with Paulus Tannos's application for leave to judicially review the Minister for Law's decision to issue an extradition notice under s 11(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1968, in connection with Indonesia's KPK request relating to the e-KTP corruption scheme.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (19)
Cited By (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
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] SGHC 118)