Corrections regarding false statements concerning the execution of prisoners awaiting capital punishment

The Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) is aware of the following publications that contain a false statement concerning the execution of three prisoners awaiting capital punishment (“PACPs”), namely, Rosman bin Abdullah (“Rosman”), Roslan bin Bakar (“Roslan”), and Pausi bin Jefridin (“Pausi”):

• Transformative Justice Collective’s (“TJC”) Instagram post on 20 November 2024, with Kokila Annamalai and Rocky Howe added as collaborators; and

• TJC’s Facebook, TikTok and X posts on 20 November 2024.
  
  Among other things, these publications assert that the three prisoners were executed without regard for their intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. This is not true.

Facts:

• In their post-appeal applications to the Court for re-sentencing, the PACPs argued that they suffered from abnormality of mind, which substantially impaired their mental responsibility for their acts and omissions in relation to the offences. The Court considered the evidence they produced, and rejected their assertions.

Rosman

• Rosman underwent trial in the High Court (“HC”) for a capital drug trafficking offence. On 16 July 2010, he was convicted after the trial and was sentenced to death. He was trafficking in drugs enough to feed the addiction of about 690 abusers a week. His appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (“CA”) on 26 April 2011.

• Following amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”) in 2012 (which introduced the discretionary death penalty)¹, Rosman applied to the HC in 2015 to be re-sentenced to life imprisonment, on the basis that he should get the benefit of the amendments because he was only a courier, and that he had rendered substantive assistance to the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore. The HC dismissed his application, based on the facts.

• On appeal to the CA, Rosman also argued, for the first time, that he was suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence, and thus satisfied the requirements under section 33B(3) of the MDA instead. Rosman relied on a private psychiatrist’s report. At the same time, an earlier psychiatric report from the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) dated 13 February 2013 stated that Rosman was not suffering from any mental disorder at the time of the commission of the offence.

• The CA considered the psychiatric reports and the arguments raised by Rosman in relation to his purported mental disabilities. The CA received expert evidence on the matter and found that Rosman’s own investigation statements and the evidence adduced at trial clearly showed that he had exhibited clarity of mind at or around the time of the commission of the offence. The CA found that Rosman “did weigh the costs and benefits of embarking on [his] criminal conduct and made the conscious and informed decision to do so, notwithstanding that he was fully apprised of the consequences of his actions”.

• The CA dismissed Rosman’s appeal.

• Rosman’s petitions to the President for clemency were rejected on 29 July 2019 and on 10 September 2020.

Pausi and Roslan

• On 22 April 2010, Pausi and Roslan were convicted and sentenced by the HC to capital punishment for possessing diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, in quantity enough to feed the addiction of 1,150 drug abusers for a week. Their appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed by the CA on 17 March 2011.

• Following amendments to the MDA in 2012, Roslan and Pausi applied to the HC in 2016 to be re-sentenced to life imprisonment under section 33B(3) of the MDA. Both claimed to be suffering from an abnormality of mind, which substantially impaired their respective mental responsibility for their acts and omissions.

• The HC found that both Pausi and Roslan had displayed competence and comprehension of what they were doing when they carried out their act of trafficking in the drugs. The HC dismissed the applications on 13 November 2017. They appealed against the HC’s decision and their appeals were dismissed by the CA on 26 September 2018.

• Pausi and Roslan’s petitions to the President for clemency were rejected on 13 September 2019.

• Their death sentences were thereafter carried out in accordance with the law.

• The Minister for Digital Development and Information and Second Minister for Home Affairs has instructed the POFMA Office to issue a POFMA Correction Direction to TJC’s Facebook, Instagram and X posts, and a Targeted Correction Direction to be issued to TikTok Pte Ltd. The Correction Direction requires TJC to insert a Correction Notice against the original post, with a link to the Government’s clarification. TikTok will also be required to communicate a Correction Notice to all end-users in Singapore that had accessed the TikTok post. We advise members of the public not to speculate and/or spread unverified rumours.

Additional Clarifications

• TJC also pointed out that Rosman had been on the death row for 14 years. (Pausi and Roslan were similarly sentenced after trial to the death penalty in 2010, and were on death row for a similar period of time.)

• This duration is significantly longer due to legal applications taken out by Rosman, and Pausi and Roslan.
  
  Rosman

  1. After Rosman’s appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 26 April 2011, Rosman was an applicant and/or joint applicant in nine other legal proceedings which have been dealt with.

  2. Rosman was initially scheduled for execution on 23 February 2022. One day before his scheduled execution, i.e. on 22 February 2022, he filed an application (“OS 174/2022”). His application was heard on 28 February 2022, and the HC ordered a stay of execution pending the outcome of the application.

  3. On 16 March 2022, OS 174/2022 was dismissed by the HC. In its judgment, the HC held that the application (along with others) was an abuse of the process of the court, and ought to be dismissed.

  4. Rosman’s sentence was carried out on 22 November 2024 in accordance with the law.
     
     Pausi and Roslan

  5. After Pausi and Roslan’s appeals against their conviction and sentence were dismissed on 17 March 2011, Pausi was an applicant in eight other legal proceedings and Roslan was an applicant in 14 other legal proceedings, all of which have been dealt with.

  6. These applications were considered by the Court. Many were found to be unmeritorious, and a deliberate attempt to stymie the carrying out of their punishments. For instance, in Roslan bin Bakar & Pausi bin Jefridin v Attorney-General [2022] SGCA 20, the CA noted that the applicants had used judicial review proceedings to put forward the same baseless arguments which they had canvassed in earlier criminal proceedings. This amounted to an abuse of process.

  7. Pausi and Roslan were first scheduled for execution on 16 February 2022. On 14 February 2022, i.e. two days before their scheduled execution, Pausi and Roslan’s lawyers filed an application to Court to be granted leave to set aside their capital sentences.

  8. On 15 February 2022, the CA dismissed the application. After the dismissal, on the same day (i.e. 15 February 2022), another application was filed by their lawyers, asking for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. On the morning of 16 February 2022, the HC heard and dismissed the application. They appealed to the CA on the same day. In view of the pending appeal, the President ordered a respite of the judicial executions. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

  9. Roslan was also one of the applicants in a court application challenging the constitutionality of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 (“OA 972”). Prior to his execution, Roslan sought a stay of execution on the basis of, amongst other things, this pending proceeding. The CA dismissed the application for a stay, and took the view that “OA 972 [was] not a relevant proceeding that warrants a stay of execution”.

• An execution will only be scheduled when a prisoner has exhausted all rights of appeal and the clemency process in relation to his or her conviction and sentence. At the time their sentences were carried out, the three PACPs had no outstanding relevant legal proceedings which would affect the carrying out of their sentences.

• TJC has also referred to the CA’s ruling in Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin & 12 others v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 39 (“CA 30”), and pointed out that Rosman and Roslan were among the applicants in that case. The Ministry of Home Affairs has explained to Parliament that most of the documents shared with AGC were in the context of scheduling the executions of PACPs². The officers believed in good faith that the documents could be shared with AGC, for the purpose of seeking legal advice on scheduling, and ensuring that the PACPs’ rights were not infringed in terms of further steps being taken with regard to their sentences.

• The CA upheld the HC Judge’s award of nominal damages (of $10 each) to three of the 13 prisoners, for breach of copyright. The CA said that there was no basis for the prisoners’ claims for further damages. The CA also noted that no breach of confidence arose from the prison officers opening or perusing any of the documents, because they were entitled to do so under the Prisons Regulations.

• The PACPs were scheduled for carrying out of their sentences, according to guidelines accepted by the CA in Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2021] 1 SLR 809. Contrary to TJC’s assertions, there was no “hurry” to schedule the execution of prisoners such as Rosman, who were applicants in CA 30.

Conclusion

• The PACPs Rosman, Pausi, and Roslan were afforded due legal process. Their capital sentences were upheld after the Court had fully considered and rejected their claims and evidence in relation to their purported mental disabilities. Their executions were scheduled only upon the exhaustion of all rights of appeal, as well as the clemency process.

¹ The 2012 amendments to the MDA introduced a departure from the mandatory death penalty for a capital offence of drug trafficking or importation, if certain requirements were met.

1. First, under section 33B(2) of the MDA, if the offender played the role of a courier, and had been certified by the Public Prosecutor to have substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore, the court had the discretion to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, instead of the death penalty.

2. Second, under section 33B(3) of the MDA, if the offender played the role of a courier, and suffered from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in relation to the offence, the court must sentence him to life imprisonment, instead of the death penalty.

² http://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-pq-on-handling-of-prisoners-correspondences/