Pritam Singh questions prosecution’s public interest threshold in his case vs. Iswaran’s

SINGAPORE: In a statement issued on Monday (26 August), Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh outlined his rationale for filing a criminal motion to have his upcoming trial moved to the High Court.

Mr Singh argued that the court’s interpretation of his charges under section 31(q) of the Parliament Act could affect not only the conduct of Members of Parliament but also the fairness of Committee of Privileges (COP) inquiries and the treatment of ordinary citizens summoned by parliamentary committees, emphasizing the broader public interest in his case.

Mr Singh, who is also the Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party (WP), faces charges of lying during a 2021 COP inquiry into former MP Raeesah Khan’s statements.

His trial is scheduled to take place from 14 October to 13 November.

Singh’s legal team, led by lawyers Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Emmanuel Eng, argued before Justice Hoo Sheau Peng on Monday that the case merits a High Court review. The decision has been adjourned to 9 September.

In a Facebook post, Mr Singh explained that a case can be transferred from the State Courts to the High Court in two ways.

The first method allows the Public Prosecutor to initiate the transfer on their own accord, as seen in former Transport Minister S. Iswaran’s corruption charges, where the prosecution moved his case from the State Courts to the High Court.

On 8 February 2024, it was reported that the Public Prosecutor had applied for this transfer due to the “strong public interest” in Iswaran’s case, a move that neither Iswaran nor his lawyers opposed.

Should Iswaran be dissatisfied with the outcome of his High Court trial, his appeal would be heard by the next higher court, the Court of Appeal.

Mr Singh highlighted the significance of such a transfer.

“An appeal from a decision made at the State Courts can only be heard by the High Court, and not the highest court of the land – the Court of Appeal – where more than one judge presides over the appeal. ”

During Monday hearing, Mr Singh’s counsel argued that his case touches on the very essence of democracy, a perspective reinforced by Minister Indranee Rajah’s February 2022 speech, which emphasized the importance of parliamentary conduct and accountability.

However, Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock, leading a four-member prosecution team, rejected Singh’s request, stating there were “no significant public interest considerations” to warrant a transfer of his case to the High Court.

Ang explained that Iswaran’s case involved potential legal interpretations with broader implications for public servants and was based on section 165 of the Penal Code.

The prosecution asserted that this section applied to all public servants in Singapore, meaning the Court’s interpretation could significantly impact how public servants conduct their affairs and engage in transactions.

The prosecution emphasized that Iswaran’s case was appropriate for the High Court because any appeal against the High Court’s decision would benefit from a “final pronouncement by the Court of Appeal,” which would help clarify the parameters of section 165.

Mr Singh stated that his lawyers made a similar argument in principle, but emphasized that the justification for transferring his case to the High Court was even stronger.

He explained that the charges against him stem from the findings of COP, and that the Court’s interpretation of section 31(q) of the Parliament Act could have far-reaching implications.

These implications extend beyond how MPs conduct themselves in Parliament, potentially influencing broader issues such as the procedures and fairness of COP inquiries.

For example, whether the COP is required to adhere to principles of natural justice and the standard of proof needed before recommending criminal prosecution are significant considerations.

Furthermore, Mr Singh highlighted that Parliament’s powers under section 31(q) are not limited to MPs.

They also have serious consequences for ordinary members of the public, who could be summoned before the COP or any other COPs, underscoring the broader public interest at stake in his case.

“Whist the Prosecution characterised my case as a “high profile one”, they maintained there were “no significant public interest considerations” necessitating a transfer of the case to the High Court, ” Mr Singh added.

Mr Singh observed that his lawyers found the Prosecution’s differing interpretation of what constitutes “public interest” to be contradictory.

They argued that moving the case to the High Court would align with the legal principle that “all persons in like situations will be treated alike.”

Additionally, transferring the case would help ensure consistency and clarity in the prosecution of individuals by the State, especially in cases where public interest is clear and significant, Mr Singh added.