SINGAPORE — The High Court on Thursday (Feb 13) dismissed applications by two Malaysian inmates on death row in Singapore, who had sought a stay of execution on their death sentences for drug trafficking.

Copies of one of the inmates’ affidavit were also given to the media and published before Thursday’s hearing, which “is an abuse of the court process”, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said in a statement.

This comes after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued correction directions under anti-fake news laws last month over a statement made by Malaysian human rights group Lawyers for Liberty.

The group had alleged that prison officers were instructed to carry out brutal and illegal execution methods at Changi Prison. The MHA then said these were “untrue, baseless and preposterous” allegations.

Following the release of LFL’s statement, Gobi Avedian and Datchinamurthy Kataiah — represented by lawyer M Ravi — filed a judicial review application to the High Court for the following:

• A prohibiting order for their executions to be stayed in light of the purported brutal methods.

• A mandatory order directing the MHA and the Attorney-General (AG) to give an alleged former officer from the Singapore Prison Service protection from criminal and civil liability. LFL had said in its statement that the officer gave information about the methods.

• An order that the court grant the said officer immunity from criminal prosecution, or civil liabilities, or both.

A pre-trial conference on the matter was held on Feb 4.

During the hearing, a representative of the AG said: “I am also instructed to state that we are expressly reserving all our rights against Mr Ravi.”

In their statement, the AGC said that Gobi and Datchinamurthy had failed to file any affidavit or evidence regarding the use of such illegal execution methods by 4pm on Feb 10, as the court had told them to.

Instead, they filed a second application just before that deadline. This was to seek a declaration that the AG representative’s statement breached the pair’s constitutional rights to a fair hearing of their first application.

In the AG’s submissions to the court, which was seen by TODAY, the AG argued that Mr Ravi’s reaction during the pre-trial conference was “extravagant and theatrical… in the absence of any indication that the Government was going to do anything illegal to Mr Ravi.”

Mr Ravi did not seek further clarification before filing the newest application, the AG contested, adding that he was trying to delay the hearing of the original one.

The High Court found that the AG’s words did not amount to a threat, and dismissed both of Gobi and Datchinamurthy’s applications.

The AGC has also told the court that it intends to apply for an order of costs against Mr Ravi in his personal capacity.

Meanwhile, the AGC is “considering its position” in regards to Datchinamurthy’s affidavit being published in the media. This was a breach of Supreme Court practice directions, which prohibits such publication, the AGC said. They did not state who had provided the affidavit.

Mr Ravi told TODAY that his clients are taking their case to the Court of Appeal. The appeals are being expedited, he added.

He also criticised the AG for reserving the Government’s rights against him personally.

“This is an implied or an express threat and undermines the Law Society's mission statement that calls for an independent, effective and competent legal profession which is fundamental to the upholding of the rule of law.”