A convicted drug courier in Singapore, Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, recently saw a glimmer of hope in his fight against a looming death sentence. Just a day before his scheduled execution on February 20, 2025, the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution, allowing Pannir to make a post-appeal application in a capital case.
Pannir’s legal battle dates back to May 2, 2017, when he was convicted of importing over 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore, resulting in a mandatory capital punishment. Despite filing an appeal against his conviction and sentence, the Court of Appeal dismissed his case on February 9, 2018. Following this decision, Pannir and his legal team submitted petitions for clemency to the president, which were ultimately declined.
The grim reality of his impending execution came to light on May 24, 2019, prompting Pannir to file an application seeking a stay of execution just three days prior. This initial stay allowed him to challenge the outcome of the clemency petition, among other grounds. Subsequent legal proceedings included a case where Pannir and other inmates sought recourse against the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) for breaching prisoners’ confidentiality by disclosing their correspondence with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
Fast forward to January 27, 2025, when the president issued an order for Pannir’s execution on February 20, 2025, marking a critical juncture in his legal saga. Armed with self-representation, Pannir advanced his present application on three grounds: a complaint against his former lawyer, a constitutional challenge to certain sections of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the disclosure of his correspondence by the SPS to the AGC, which he argued tainted the administration of justice.
During the recent court proceedings, Justice Woo Bih Li carefully evaluated each ground of Pannir’s application. While acknowledging that Pannir’s complaint against his former lawyer did not impact the validity of his conviction or sentence, Justice Woo noted a “reasonable prospect of success” for the application based on this ground. Similarly, the constitutional challenge presented by Pannir was deemed to hold significant weight, potentially affecting the outcome of his conviction.
However, Justice Woo dismissed the third ground related to the disclosure of Pannir’s correspondence, emphasizing that the critical focus should be on the propriety of his conviction and sentence. He highlighted that the previous Court of Appeal ruling had already addressed this aspect, leading to a negative assessment.
In light of these deliberations, the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution pending further review of Pannir’s application. This latest development injects a fresh wave of uncertainty into Pannir’s legal battle, underscoring the complexities and nuances surrounding capital punishment and the pursuit of justice. As Pannir navigates this intricate legal landscape, the fate of his future hangs in the balance, awaiting the next chapter in his ongoing struggle for clemency and redemption.
