[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Nationality is not a factor considered in the scheduling of executions, a lawyer for the Attorney General’s Office said on Monday (November 30), in the case of a convicted Singaporean drug trafficker challenging the authorities’ decision to carry out his hanging in front of other death row inmates.
Syed Suhail Syed Zin, 44, who is represented by attorney M. Ravi, had alleged discrimination based on nationality because he was scheduled to be hanged before Malaysian drug lord Datchinamurthy Kataiah.
Datchinamurthy was sentenced to death before Suhail in 2015, but Suhail was scheduled to be hanged in September this year, before Datchinamurthy.
On Monday, the state’s chief prosecutor, Francis Ng, told the High Court that Datchinamurthy’s execution was not scheduled because his case was affected by a separate case that was pending a decision by the Court of Appeal.
In that separate case, Malaysian drug lord Gobi Avedian, who is also represented by Ravi, escaped from the gallows on October 19 after he managed to get the higher court to review his conviction.
Ng said Suhail’s belief that foreigners and Singaporeans were being treated differently was “unfounded” and Ravi’s accusations that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) was biased against Singaporeans was “empty rhetoric” .
Justice See Kee Oon reserved the trial after hearing arguments from both parties. It will give its decision on Suhail’s request for judicial review at a later date.
Suhail was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty by the High Court on December 2, 2015 for trafficking 38.84 g of heroin. His appeal was dismissed on October 18, 2018.
On July 5 last year, Suhail was told that his petition for clemency had been rejected. On September 11 of this year, they told him that they would hang him on September 18.
Mr. Ravi then requested permission from the High Court for judicial review of the SPS decision on the timing of his execution.
He suggested that as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, executions of foreigners were being delayed because inmates did not have access to their relatives due to travel restrictions and possible problems in the repatriation of their remains.
Judge See rejected his request on September 17, but ordered a stay of Suhail’s execution pending appeal.
The superior court on October 23 allowed Suhail to argue his case on the scheduling of executions.
On Monday, Ravi argued that the decision to execute Suhail before Datchinamurthy was a violation of the rules of natural justice and a violation of his constitutional right to equality.
Mr. Ravi mentioned another death row inmate, Singaporean Masoud Rahimi Mehrzad, arguing that Suhail was scheduled to be hanged before those sentenced before him.
Ng said the Interior Ministry has submitted an affidavit to refute suggestions that repatriation of the remains and visits by relatives have been hampered by the pandemic.
He said the scheduling of the executions was carried out in a “rational and principled manner” and that there were good reasons why the executions of Datchinamurthy and Masoud were not scheduled before those of Suhail.
“Therefore, it is clear that there was no illegal ‘differential treatment’ in scheduling the enforcement of the plaintiff’s sentence earlier than that of Mr. Datchinamurthy and Mr. Masoud,” said Mr. Ng.
[ad_2]
