Paulus Tannos v The State

Mr Paulus Tannos, a 71-year-old Indonesian-born permanent resident of Singapore, was arrested on 17 January 2025 under a warrant issued under s 12(1) of the Extradition Act 1968 and remanded in Changi Prison. On 20 February 2025 Indonesia formally requested his extradition on a charge of an alleged corruption offence linked to the e-KTP electronic identity card project between 2011 and 2013. It was alleged that, as President Director of a company in the consortium that won the tender, he agreed to pay and took part in paying bribes to ministry officials and members of the Indonesian House of Representatives.

He applied for bail on the ground that he was sick or infirm. On 16 June 2025 a District Judge refused, holding that the words cover only an illness that cannot reasonably be managed in prison, that his conditions could be so managed, and that he was in any event a high flight risk. He then brought HC/CM 41/2025 asking the High Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction and release him on bail. He argued that sick or infirm should bear its plain meaning, or alternatively cover any non-trivial pre-existing ailment, and alternatively relied on the court's inherent powers.

1. What test determines whether a fugitive is sick or infirm under r 6(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2018
2. Whether the applicant was sick or infirm on that test
3. Whether bail should have been refused in any event because of the risk of flight
4. Whether the court had an inherent power to grant bail outside the statutory scheme

Revision requires an error and resulting serious injustice. Under s 95(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, a fugitive apprehended under the Extradition Act must not be released on bail unless an exception in r 6(1) applies, and s 97 is subject to s 95. This places fugitives alongside those facing death or life imprisonment, pointing to a narrow reading of the exceptions.

The court rejected the plain-meaning reading because even a minor illness would found bail, which was unworkable. The non-trivial pre-existing ailment reading excluded conditions first diagnosed in prison. Sick or infirm therefore means a sickness or infirmity that the Singapore Prison Service cannot reasonably manage safely, consistent with Muhammad Feroz Khan bin Abdul Kader v Public Prosecutor [2023] 4 SLR 1062. This objective standard treats prisoners equally and serves the purpose of ensuring Singapore can meet its extradition obligations.

The applicant's coronary artery disease, diabetes and other conditions were stable and being managed, including an emergency hospital referral. No private physician evidence showed otherwise, and he had a lower-level cell.

Even if he had been sick or infirm, the key consideration in extradition cases is flight risk. He held passports from Guinea-Bissau and Vanuatu, including a diplomatic passport in another name for which he gave inconsistent accounts, travelled often, and had children abroad. The offence carried a maximum of life imprisonment. Where a clear statutory power exists, no wider inherent power arises.

The High Court dismissed the criminal motion, finding no error in the District Judge's refusal of bail and so no basis to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction.