Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh, 48, has failed in his bid to have his case heard in the High Court, CNA reported on Sep. 9, 2024. Singh faces two charges of lying to a Committee of Privileges over Raeesah Khan’s case. The trial is set for 16 days, starting from Oct. 14 to 18, and will be presided over by Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan. Singh is represented by lawyers Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang and Andre Darius Jumabhoy from Andre Jumabhoy LLC.
Background
Singh’s lawyers referred to the case of S Iswaran, whose case was transferred to the High Court with both prosecution and defence agreeing to the transfer. They argued that Singh’s case holds “strong public interest” and is potentially more impactful than Iswaran’s, as it involves charges under an act that extends to all members of parliament. However, the prosecution opposed the application, stating that Iswaran’s case was transferred under a different section and had broader implications for civil servants. Deputy attorney-general Ang Cheng Hock emphasised that Singh’s case is a “purely factual inquiry” about whether Singh lied to the committee, and that “public interest” refers to what is in the public good, not public curiosity.
Singh’s application
Singh’s application was initially made under Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the prosecution did not agree to this request. Ang stated that Singh should have applied for a judicial review of the prosecution’s decision at that point. Instead, Singh’s lawyers filed a criminal motion under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under this section, Singh would need to show that he would be unlikely to obtain a fair and impartial trial by the State Courts. Section 239 allows for a transfer if a fair trial cannot be had, if a question of law of unusual difficulty arises, or if the transfer is expedient for justice.
Charges against Singh
Singh faces two charges for allegedly giving false answers on Dec. 10 and Dec. 15, 2021, during an inquiry before the Committee of Privileges at Parliament House. This inquiry pertained to former MP Raeesah Khan, who had lied about a sexual assault case and accused the police of mishandling it. Singh allegedly testified falsely, claiming he wanted Khan to clarify her statements in parliament. If convicted under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Singh could face up to three years in jail, a fine of up to S$7,000, or both per charge. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has indicated it would seek a fine for each charge if Singh is convicted.
Implications and future developments
The failure of Singh’s bid to have his case heard in the High Court means the trial will proceed in the State Courts as scheduled. This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on the separation of cases based on their legal and factual complexities. The outcome of Singh’s trial could have significant implications for parliamentary conduct and the legal responsibilities of MPs. Observers will be keenly watching how this case unfolds and its potential impact on future parliamentary inquiries and legal proceedings involving public officials.
